1 m e t ho i> i s t T h e e l o g y 



e m i I ( ) i > I s t T h e o l o g i a n s i 



GK W. WILSON 



Class "flX ^351 

Book 

Gopyright^ 0 

COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



Methodist Theology 

vs. 

Methodist Theologians 

A Review of 
Several Methodist Writers 

By 

GEORGE W. WILSON 

Author ot 

" Get Right with God," " Evangelism," " Review of Prof. Bowne's Studies 
in the Christian Life," "Truths as I have Seen Them," and 
"The Sign of Thy Coming" 

with an introduction by 
BISHOP W. F. MALLALIEU, D.D., LL. D. 



The most dangerous enemies to moral purity are not the vulgar writers 
of pestilent tales and filthy poems, but the literary princes, who, with 
specious arguments, enticing rhetoric, fine irony, seek to displace and dis- 
honor the lofty, noble, moral philosophy of our fathers. 

— Rev. W. L. Watkinson, Fernley Lectures, Vol. Ill, p. 75. 



CINCINNATI 
PRESS OF JENNINGS AND PYE 

l c \<{ 0 4-. 3 



I IBPaRy a* CONGRESS 

Two CoDies Received 

JUN 23 1904 
Cooyrfgrht Entry 

GLASS XXo. No. 

^ if / 5 L 

COPY B 



Copyright, 1904, by 
George W. Wilson. 



J 



To 

That branch of Methodism zvhich has retained its spiritual con- 
sciousness of the soundness, truthfulness, and Scrip turalness of 
the spiritual teachings of its illustrious Leader; 

To 

Those who long for the preaching of an unadulterated Gospel 
with the same clearness, unction, and fruitfulness that character- 
ized the fathers; 

To 

Those who can not surrender the facts of Christian experience 
for the undemonstrated, unscientific, and rationalistic theories of 
teachers who contradict Christian consciousness; and 

To 

Those who shall to the end earnestly contend for the faith once 
for all delivered to the saints, 

THIS VOLUME 

Is prayerfully inscribed. 



3 



PREFACE. 



Of recent years Methodism has published several vol- 
umes in which the authors assail doctrines which are fun- 
damental to the spirituality, growth, and perpetuity of her 
institutions. These volumes are influencing the thought 
of the Church. Their aim is to correct well-established 
beliefs, under the plea of giving us a more reasonable, 
philosophical, and sounder theology and terminology. 
Under the charge of an unsound interpretation of the 
Scriptures, a false psychology, limited intellectuality, lack 
of scientific acumen, the dominance of imagination over 
reason, and emotions which mislead the judgment, they 
hurl from them the testimonies, doctrines, and teachings 
concerning every vital truth which has made us a distinc- 
tive people. The crude statements of some are magnified 
and frequently made to stand out as the reality of the ex- 
perience itself. Reason assumes the prerogative of deter- 
mining what is real and what is imaginative. One's con- 
sciousness is made the standard by which the testimonies 
of others are tested, and a philosophy of experience is 
made to stand for the experience itself. They contradict 
the clearest consciousness of most reliable witnesses, and 
unfortunately contradict themselves. Scriptural statements 
are contradicted or reasoned away, and the charge is made 

5 



6 



PREFACE. 



that the Church's spiritual history has been wrought by 
erroneous beliefs. These writers do not alarm us. In no 
sense have they established any right to be heard, by any 
reasonable solution of the problems they endeavor to solve ; 
they lack the facts of personal experience. They suggest 
doubt by failing to explain anything. Interrogation points 
are poor resting-places for a weary spirit. A daring, dash- 
ing, dogmatic assault upon erroneous expressions that 
ends in denying spiritual realities, blending sophistry, sar- 
casm, and self-assertion, can hardly be called sound rea- 
soning. Reasoning which produces no evidence, or does 
not make the truth clearer to one's vision and more exact 
in form, may gratify vanity, but can not be an aid to 
spirituality. Equally great intellects believe the things 
these writers deny. These assaults of reason, so called, 
inside the Church would long since have divested it of its 
spirituality had not God placed "I know" over against 
"I think." When man bases his thinking upon self- 
conscious states alone, God withholds His manifested pres- 
ence, and spiritual darkness ensues. President Elliott, of 
Harvard University, recently expressed his disapproval of 
what he calls "Methodist Emotionalism." Recent science 
emphasizes the fact that "Emotional occasions, especially 
violent ones, are extremely potent in precipitating mental 
rearrangements." What has produced sounder and more 
healthy emotions, without disastrous counteraction, like 
the manifestations of God to His people, which have made 
religious experience the corrective of unsound theology? 
It is the very truths, divinely revealed, which arouse such 



PREFACE. 



7 



heavenly emotions, which are being assailed by these 
writers. Teachings and experiences which have modified 
the most learned systems of religion by challenging them 
to test them experimentally are considered as "theological 
monstrosities." These "enemies of the Cross" are some- 
times bitter in spirit, and with a limited spirituality have 
undertaken to deny the larger spiritual consciousness of 
others. They ignore those intellectual enlightenments, 
moral exaltations, and intense joyousnesses which are fre- 
quently imparted to those who are their intellectual peers ; 
experiences which change one's thought, character, and 
life. They frequently ignore the Word of God, holding 
that no matter what the Scriptures seem to say we are 
to follow our moral reason. 

Everything fundamental to Methodism is being as- 
sailed. An advanced theology means a clearer statement 
of the truth without excluding any truth now in our pos- 
session. The difficulty this volume combats is not our 
inability to measure up to the high spiritual state or ideal 
held out to us, but to surrender our sources of power; 
the loss of Methodism in a sea of vain speculations, and 
the decrease of those experiences and testimonies and 
interpretations of God's Word which have confounded all 
human philosophy, and makes heaven resonant with re- 
demption's song. " When these writers include more in 
their definitions than our fathers, and lead to greater spir- 
itual heights, they will not lack followers. The bewildered 
mind at last seeks positive truth. This writer begs for- 
bearance concerning style, literary taste, and an apparent 



PREFACE. 



dogmatism. In reviewing authors, one can not adopt that 
easy method which comes from consecutively pursuing 
his own thoughts to their legitimate conclusions. We 
enter this field in defense of the truth, and pray for that 
guidance which is necessary to discern between a process 
of reasoning and a discovery of the truth. Two Meth- 
odisms ! Which ? 

G. W. WILSON. 

602 W. High Street, Urbana, III 



INTRODUCTION. 



John Wesley was no ordinary man. It seems that 
he was as really a chosen vessel of the Almighty as was 
Paul, or Isaiah, or Samuel, or Moses. His work was 
different from that of these men who preceded him, but 
it was none the less God's work, and he was God's 
servant. Heredity did much for him. Home influences 
did more. His university training supplemented both. 
His long and wearisome search after God, and the suc- 
cessful outcome of his search made him a fit leader of 
men. His natural temperament, his perfectness of phys- 
ical life, his rare insight into human nature, his sympathy 
with the common people, and his ability to command the 
respect of the most exalted, his broad, minute, thorough, 
exhaustive scholarship, his patient, long-continued utiliza- 
tion of the inductive methods of the great philosopher 
Bacon in the observation and careful study of the .various 
phases of religious theories and experience with which 
he came in contact for more than sixty years, altogether 
gave him a most wonderful power over the men and 
thought of his own time, a power which has gone on 
increasing at a most surprising ratio until the present 
time, and was never so great and aggressive as now. 

9 



IO 



INTRODUCTION. 



It took a very bold, not to say reckless, man to con- 
front him while he lived, for it is a notable fact that while 
he never was known to commence a quarrel with any one, 
he was never known to be the first to quit when once a 
quarrel had commenced. Hence it seems a very unwise 
procedure on the part of an average scholar or theologian 
in these days to set up for a critic of John Wesley. The 
race of man has produced only a very few men who have 
equaled Wesley, and fewer still who have surpassed him. 
And yet we have now and then one who assumes to 
know more about the subjects concerning which Wesley 
wrote than he knew. Little critics are this sort of people 
who undertake to correct his English, his interpretation 
of Scripture, his theological statements, his views of 
Christian experience, and many other matters of greater 
or less importance. 

This book takes us away from the theorists, and 
doubters, and disputers, and gives us Wesley and what 
he taught and what every one of his followers may well 
accept ; certainly is this the case so far as the points 
discussed in the book are concerned. 

It must have been observed by most, if not all. who 
have given attention to the subject, that a theoretical 
lowering of moral standards is sure to follow, except in 
rare cases, the lowering of moral conduct. The standards 
are made to correspond with the conduct, and so depar- 
tures from righteousness are either condoned or excused. 
In the same way it sometimes happens that theological 
standards of Christian experience are adjusted to har- 



INTRODUCTION. 



ii 



monize with a lukewarm, cold, or backslidden experience. 
It is a constant source of perplexity to careful observers 
to see persons who at one time professed the experience 
of full salvation and taught its reality and attainability, 
alike from the Bible and the writings of Wesley and 
others, in subsequent years go back on their own tes- 
timony as to the reality and attainability of the blessing, 
and then in order to justify themselves give new and 
different views of the Bible teachings and also discredit 
the teachings of Wesley. One of the many perplexities 
in such cases is to determine whether now or then such 
a person could be trusted. Was he honest then? Is he 
honest now? Was he deceived then? Is he deceived? 
We have no such difficulty in the case of John Wesley. 
He commenced in the darkness, found his way into the 
light, and held on his course without wavering. He has 
shown by the methods employed, and the results attained, 
that he was and is a safe guide, and we may follow him 
without the slightest hesitation as he searches into the 
deep things of God. Certainly all this will apply with 
special emphasis whether we have in mind the doctrine 
of the Trinity, the absolute Deity of Jesus Christ, the 
personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit, the doctrine 
of the fall ot man, the natural depravity of each human 
being, the inspiration of the Bible, the supernatural in 
prophecy and miracle, the atonement — its ground, scope, 
and results ; the nature, origin, and possibilities of the 
Christian life; the resurrection, judgment, heaven, and 



12 



INTRODUCTION. 



hell. In all these respects it may be said that it will be 
safe, perfectly so, to follow John Wesley. 

It is clear also that the time has come when there 
is need of such a book as this, and it is to be hoped that 
it will be read with candor and its truths accepted, and 
our Methodism become more Wesleyan and Scriptural as 
the years go on, rather than yield to the unevangelical, 
un- Wesleyan, and un- Scriptural tendency of the present 
times. 

Wiixard F. Mai^aueu. 

Aubiirndale, Mass. 



CONTENTS 



Page 

Preface, 5 

Introduction, by Bishop W. F. Maixaiteu, D. D., 

LL.D., 9 

Chapter 

I. A Review of "The Atonement," by Proe. B. P. 
Bowne, Boston University, 
i. Origin of Man. 2. Denies the Fall. 3. Definitions 
of Sin. 4. The Language of Scripture. 5. Christ 
Recognizes their Relation to Himself. 6. Prof. 
Bowne's Gospel. 7. Impression Founded upon Facts. 
8. The Incarnation the Atonement. 9. The Lamb of 
God. 10. Christ's Death gives True Meaning to the 
Incarnation. 11. Is Old Testament History Legend- 
ary? 12. Jewish Sacrifices are True Types. 13. God's 
Wrath. 14. Self-executing Laws. 15. No Atone- 
ment for the Past. 16. Contradicts Christ. 17. Sub- 
stitute for an Atonement. 18. The Incarnation Pro- 
cures Forgiveness. 19. Displaces the Object of 
Faith. 20. Moral Law Unchangeable. 21. Parable 
of the Prodigal Son. 22. Father and Sovereign In- 
separable. 23. He Denies Debt on Our Part. 24. 
The Past is Not Forgiven. 25. Confesses his Theory 
an Incomplete One. 26. Objections, - - - 15 

II. A Review of " Studies in the Christian Life," by 
the Same Author. 
1. Purpose in Writing. 2. Confounding the Language 
of Theology and Experience. 3. Christ's Tempta- 
tion. 4. Witness of the Spirit. 5. Neither Saints 
nor Sinners. 6. Methodist Emotionalism. 7. Father- 
hood of God. 8. Parable of the Prodigal Son. 9. 
Repentance. 10. Forgiveness. 11. Denies every- 
thing Distinctively Methodistic, - - 67 
13 



CONTENTS. 



Chapter Page 

III. A Review oe " Sin and Hoeiness," by D. W. C. Hunt- 

ington, D. D., Nebraska Weseeyan University. 

i. His Experience. 2. A Sad Picture. 3. What Sin 
Is. 4. Charges Wesley Falsely. 5. His Statement 
Proved False. 6. Scripture Definitions of Sin. 7. 
Sin Impersonal. 8. Children Need the Atonement. 
9. Sins of Ignorance. 10. The Relation of a Nature 
to Law. 11. A Bloodless Salvation. 12. Contradicts 
Himself. 13. Sin in the Heart. 14. Wesley on In- 
bred Sin. 15. Conditioned Freedom. 16. Playing 
with Terminology. 17. Ancestral Sin. 18. Inbred 
Sin in Children. 19. Sin in the Sensibilities. 20. 
Articles of Methodism. 21. Correction vs. Eradica- 
tion. 22. Misrepresents Rev. Asa Mahan, LL. D. 23. 
Temptation. 24. His Converts Not Saved from Sin- 
ning. 25. Wesley on 1 John iii, 9. 26. On the New 
Birth. 27. Minifies Regeneration. 28. Wesley on 
Time and Method. 29. Definitions of Holiness. 30. 
Wesley on What Holiness Is. 31. Wesley on Per- 
fection. 32. Misrepresents Mr. Fletcher. 33. The 
Witness of the Spirit to our Cleansing. 34. Some 
Items of History. 35. Effects Upon the Churches. 
36. Concluding Remarks. 37. Objections, - - 125 

IV. A Review of " Personal, Saevation," by Proe. W. F. 

Tieeett, D. D., Vanderbiet University. 
1. Lacks Experimental Clearness. 2. Love Defined. 
3. Definitions of Sin. 4. Regeneration. 5. Defines 
Sanctification and Holiness. 6. Sinlessness. 7. Mis- 
representation. 8. Exegesis. 9. A Conundrum. 10. 
Entire Sanctification. 11. Christian Perfection. 12. 
Maturity. 13. Wesley's Two Sermons. 14. History 
Misrepresented. 15. Luke Tyerman's Error. 16. 
Maxfield and Bell. 17. Did Mr. Wesley let Instanta- 
neous Sanctification Quietly Drop ? 18. Keswick 
and Northfield vs. Methodism. 19. Wesley as a 
Preacher and Theologian. 20. Shine by Its Own 
Light. 21. Objections, ------ 225 



V. Conceusion, 



327 



"THE ATONEMENT.' 



By Processor Borden P. Bowne, 

Boston University. 

See how the ancient spirit of Methodism evaporates under 
those wonderfully able rationalistic booklets of a philosopher 
like Professor Bowne. — Professor James, "Varieties of Religious 
Experience," p. 502. 

15 



O, Brother Jackson, we who have had a Methodist training 
can never be sufficiently thankful to God for the two great lessons 
which we were taught in early life — the atonement of Christ, and 
the use to be made of that atonement. — Rev. Richard Watson's 
last interview just before death. 

16 



CHAPTER I. 



Among the volumes to be reviewed is one of three 
booklets by Professor Borden P. Bowne, of Boston Uni- 
versity, entitled "The Atonement." While denying that 
any view is necessary to a reception of the benefits of the 
atonement he holds to "the moral view," sufficiently modi- 
fied and adapted to include his theory of evolution. To 
review his writings one must examine his definitions. 

ORIGIN OF MAN. 

He says of man, the subject of the atonement: 

His life is "rooted in the animal, out of which we only slowly 
and by much trial and error emerge." 1 "Our development begins 
on a sub-moral plane. That was not first which was spiritual, 
but that which was animal (psychical), and afterward that which 
was spiritual. Whatever may have been true of the first man, 
this word of Paul's is true of his descendants ; and the reported 
performances of even the first man would not seem to set him 
very high in the scale of development." 2 "Unless we suppose 
God to have made the world in the dark, we must allow that He 
foreknew and intended to have just this developing human world 
with its necessity for struggling out of the animal into the spir- 
itual, out of the mechanical into the free, out of the selfish into 
the loving, out of the earthly into the Divine." 3 "There are animal 
beginnings with moral endings." 4 "It is not a conscious moral 
life from the start, but a sub-moral, sub-rational, even animal life, 
which is to develop into moral and spiritual forms. The individ- 
ual in his personal life develops slowly into intelligence, knowl- 
edge, and self-control ; and the social development, which has such 



!P. 66. 2 p. 69. 3 p. 7 o. 4 p. 93. 
2 17 



18 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 

significance for the mental and moral life of the individual, is an 
age-long process. Account has to be taken of both orders of 
development in estimating the moral life of men." 5 "The general 
form of our life, with its marked prominence of the physical and 
the animal, is itself a stumbling-block." 6 "We have to deal, not 
with hypothetical and abstract moral agents, but with beings in 
the order of development where the intellectual insight, the vo- 
litional self-control, and the moral sensibility have to be devel- 
oped, and where the development is never complete." 7 

Professor Bowne roots the life of man in the animal, 
an undemonstrated hypothesis, for which not a particle of 
proof yet exists. Where are the facts upon which he bases 
these bald statements? Geologic truth ought to furnish 
abundant evidence if this position is true. If God created 
man in His own image, certainly that was not first which 
is animal. The image of God is spiritual, not psychical. 
God is a Spirit. Man is a spirit. The Scriptures recog- 
nize a distinction between man and the animal world, and 
record a distinct, divine, creative act as the cause of man's 
existence, prior to which no specimens of the man-like 
animal are found. He does not give a hint in his booklets 
that the race became fallen in Adam. There is no foun- 
dation laid in his theory of the origin and development 
of man for the fall, consequently his theory of the atone- 
ment can not include the gospel of redemption. His 
"moral view" affords a very limited freedom on the part 
of the subject for whom the atonement was made. He 
makes the struggle "out of the animal into the spiritual" 
a "necessity" God "foreknew and intended," for which 

5 P. 129. 6 The Christian Revelation, p. 33. 
7 The Christian I^ife, p. 18. 



THE ATONEMENT. 



19 



he furnishes neither ethnographic nor Scriptural reasons. 
Christ took upon Him our nature, and was "made like 
unto His brethren." Will he hold that Christ was first 
animal and became spiritual after an "age-long process?" 
If we were first animal, so was Christ, or the Scriptures are 
not true. His theory of a necessitated, divinely-intended, 
age-long process makes it impossible for the Author of 
such a process to hasten its fulfillment. He says : 

"The development has a natural root as well as a spiritual 
goal. The development also involves the unfolding of the con- 
stitutional powers of man, as well as his abstract spiritual capac- 
ities. For a long time the development remains on the plane of 
the natural without attaining to the consciously spiritual ; but 
all the while it is the development of man in a divinely-ordered 
scheme ; and all the phases and factors of this scheme have their 
place and function in the divine plan for men." 8 What his moral 
view effects toward aiding a soul necessitated to pass through 
this "divinely-ordered scheme" of development is difficult to dis- 
cover. 

DENIES THE FALL. 

One holding such theories could not found the neces- 
sity for an atonement upon the justice and holiness of 
God. What we have called the fall is not a disorder lead- 
ing downward, but one phase "in the divine plan" for 
men. If this seeming disorder is evolutionary, redemp- 
tion is ruled out, and the atonement set forth in the Scrip- 
tures is false. A divinely-ordered scheme needs neither 
an atonement nor a redemptive process for its fulfillment. 
Really Professor Bowne has neither in his system. Re- 
demption implies restoration by purchase, and not by de- 



8 The Christian L,ife, p. 39. 



2o METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



velopment. If, as he implies, 9 the fall as recorded in 
Genesis is a myth, the foundation for any atonement is 
destroyed. " 

DEFINITION OF SIN. 

With any weakening of the sense of sin there must be 
a corresponding weakening of the need of an atonement. 
Defining sin, he says: 

"Sin itself in many of its aspects is a relic of the animal not 
yet outgrown, a resultant of the mechanism of appetite and im- 
pulse and reflex action, for which the proper inhibitions are not 
yet developed ; and only slowly does it grow into a consciousness 
of itself as evil. Thus sin is born ; that is, human beings become 
willful and selfish and willing to do wrong. This may indeed go 
to any extreme of malignity, but it would be hysteria to regard 
the common life of man as rooting in a conscious choice of un- 
righteousness/' 10 "And sin itself, as we find it among men, is 
largely the willfulness of freedom which has not learned self- 
control, rather than any deliberate choice of evil." 11 "If God is in 
history at all, we must say that He wills both that a great many 
things bad in themselves shall be, and that they shall be done 
away with." 12 

These are his definitions of sin. In many of these 
aspects it can not be a transgression of a moral law. The 
being has not entered the realm of morals. If it is the 
result of the mechanism of appetite and impulse, it must 
be under the law of necessity, and can not be volitional, 
a perversity of reason, or a depravation of the affections. 
He makes sin to root in the animal. God makes it to root 
in the spirit. It is revolt against nature, as well as plainly 
prescribed moral laws. The Scriptures say that "Sin is 

s The Christian Revelation, pp. 66, 71. 10 P. 69. 

11 The Christian Iyife, p. 41. 12 The Christian Revelation, p. 100. 



THE ATONEMENT. 



21 



the transgression of the law." "All unrighteousness is 
sin." "To him, therefore, that knoweth to do good, and 
doeth it not, to him it is sin." 

The power to sin implies a high quality of being ; ani- 
mal nature can not sin. Sin can not be charged up to 
ignorance, which measures man's innocence, nor to the 
sensuous nature. There are many sins of the darkest 
type which have nothing to do with the senses. If God 
"wills that a great many things bad in themselves shall 
be," may not this be one of the things He wills "shall be ?" 
God's will is right, so that a great many things bad in 
themselves are right. According to the Professor, a ne- 
cessitated, divinely-ordered scheme, in which God wills 
that a great many things bad in themselves shall be, leaves 
little ground for a Scriptural definition of sin. Jesus 
makes sin to "root" in unbelief ; Professor Bowne makes 
it to root in animalism. 

These definitions do not suit him, as he must know 
that neither freedom nor moral obligation are implied in 
"the mechanism of appetite and impulse;" therefore, he 
enlarges it to one including willfulness, selfishness, and 
willing to do wrong, "the willfulness of freedom, which has 
not learned self-control." Willfulness and selfishness are 
terms belonging to spirit nature. Willfulness implies a 
consciousness of law, with ability to comply with its man- 
dates (natural or gracious). These are misused attributes 
of man, and not qualities of "freedom." Man is conscious 
of some measure of freedom ; he may be conscious that he 
is willful and selfish, and that he abuses his freedom ; but 



22 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



he has no knowledge of when he became so. From what 
system of revelation, morals, psychology, or philosophy 
has Professor Bowne discovered that "human beings be- 
come willful and selfish?" 

Sin is not "born," but discerned, since Adam's fall. 
It is this fact which compels us to look behind ourselves 
for its origin. The moral law, which Professor Bowne 
so shamefully ignores in dealing with the atonement, is 
the means by which this discovery is made. Professor 
Bowne roots this willfulness and selfishness in the "ani- 
mal not yet outgrown ;" the Church has always rooted it 
in the fall of Adam. Selfishness is not animal ; it is af- 
fectional — it is the antithesis of love. The Scriptures re- 
verse the order he holds, and teach that sin appeared first 
in a free spirit, and, imparting itself to the psychical life, 
depraved it ; hence the unnatural condition of the race. 
The only human being which was natural since Adam 
was Jesus Christ. Humanity discovers itself to be selfish 
before it wills to be so, and without a work of redemption 
it finds itself incapable of being otherwise. Instead, there- 
fore, of that being first which is natural, an abnormal con- 
dition of the psychic nature is the first discovery, which, 
when traced to its source in us, is discovered to be a depra- 
vation of spirit ; and because not self-imparted must have 
accompanied our begetting. No, that is not first which 
is natural, but unnatural, incapable of self-recovery, need- 
ing an atonement and a Redeemer to restore it to original 
righteousness. We have not only an abnormal spirit, but 
a depraved psychic nature also, both tending to go beyond 



THE ATONEMENT. 



23 



the limits prescribed by the Divine law. We are under the 
dominion of a spirit of lawlessness which controls the 
"mechanism of appetite and impulse," and no amount of 
"inhibition" can prevent or cure it. 

The Scriptures say, "By one man sin entered into the 
world." Not a single passage contains any of the Pro- 
fessor's definitions. Even the passage he uses to estab- 
lish the order of development — viz., "that was not first 
which is spiritual, but that which is animal" — is taken 
from a Scripture dealing with the resurrection of the body 
by one whose statements on the atonement he treats with 
perfect indifference. 

If Professor Bowne believes in the existence of fallen 
angels, he must have some other theory for their fall and 
the origin of their sin than the "mechanism of appetite 
and impulse," or "the willfulness of freedom which has 
not learned self-control." Well has Horace Bushnell said, 
"What we called sin before we became philosophers we 
now call development, and excuse ourselves from all blame 
in it, because we are only a part of nature subject to her 
laws." 13 

We now enter this labyrinth of bewildered religious 
thought to see what a "moral view" of the atonement, 
limited by the age-long processes of evolution, can do for 
us in taking away the sin of the world. The religious 
form of these writings is their greatest danger; they 
neither represent Christianity nor Methodism. One would 
think the Scriptures were not necessary to prove his theory, 

13 Nature and the Supernatural, p. 211. 



24 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



so little use is made of them; indeed, he questions them 
where he does not ignore or deny them. In his usual 
manner he wades through fictitious theories or defective 
statements of correct doctrinal truth. Ancient theologies 
based upon Calvinistic notions of salvation are scourged 
out of the temple of truth ; after which he seeks to argue 
out of their realistic value the writings of the Scriptures 
conflicting with his moral view. Concerning 

THE LANGUAGE OF SCRIPTURE 

he says : 

"It is further plain that, for setting forth the great truth of 
Divine grace, it was necessary to use the actual speech and con- 
ception of the time. Any revelation which might be made to men 
must be cast in the existing molds of thought and expression ; 
otherwise it would be unintelligible. Accordingly we find the 
great salvation set forth in the language of ancient life and cus- 
tom. In particular the religious rites and traditions of the age 
had produced a great system of thought and speech, and in terms 
of this system the doctrine of grace was naturally cast. The lan- 
guage of the altar and temple, the customs of ransom and redemp- 
tion, the legal usages of the time, all lent themselves to its ex- 
pression. Accordingly Christ is a sacrifice and propitiation for 
our sins. He is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of 
the world. He is our Passover. He gave His life a ransom for 
many, and thus becomes the Redeemer of the world. This lan- 
guage was necessary. The religious thought and development of 
the time would have been inacessible to any other. . . . Thus 
the language of the time is used; and for that time and for all 
times it makes a true impression ; and Christian thought is left 
under the guidance of the Spirit, to distinguish between the spirit 
and the letter, between the abiding truth and the changing forms 
of expression. . . . It is becoming more and more apparent 
that the aim is to make a practically true and important impres- 
sion." "The truth is to be found in the impression, rather than 
in any logical or dictionary analysis of the forms of speech : and 



THE ATONEMENT. 



^5 



the expression and understanding will vary with the growth of 
thought and life and knowledge." 14 "We may hold that in another 
stage of moral and religious development these modes of speech 
would not be the best possible, because the forms and customs on 
which they rest have passed away. For instance, we may well 
believe that the Biblical forms of speech, while expressive and 
necessary for the time when they originated, would not be em- 
ployed if the Christian teaching were to be set forth for the first 
time to-day. . . . We can not doubt that the doctrine would 
be cast in modern molds, rather than in those of the Jewish 
Church and the Roman law. There is no good reason for think- 
ing that those ancient forms have an eternal fitness beyond all 
others for expressing the grace of God." 13 "The language of 
Scripture must be interpreted in accordance with our moral rea- 
son, no matter what it seems to say." 10 "The language of the 
Scripture is sacrificial, substitutional, and satisfactional." 17 

These lengthy quotations warrant their insertion, as 
they so clearly set forth the author's view of the language 
of the Scriptures. Evidently he thinks he has reached that 
"stage of moral and religious development" in which it 
would not be best "to use the language of Scripture." 
His "moral reason" has detected the inaccuracy of its 
statements concerning the death of Christ. He says the 
language of Scripture creates "a true impression," but it 
is most evident that the impression received by him is 
radically opposite to the one received by the Church for 
centuries past. He says the language of the Scriptures is 
sacrificial, substitutional, and satisfactional; but there is 
"no literal substitution of one person for another, no lit- 
eral satisfaction of the claims of justice, no literal pay- 
ment of a debt, no literal ransom or redemption." Indeed, 
he has no figurative substitution, satisfaction, or payment 



14 Pp. H-14. 15 Pp. l6, 17. 16 P. 29. 17 P. 54. 



26 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



of debt. The incarnation which he holds is the atone- 
ment could not furnish such, so these things are ruled out 
of his theory. 

CHRIST RECOGNIZES THEIR RELATION TO HIMSELF. 

Christ taught, and His disciples believed, that the lan- 
guage of the Old Testament prefigured His life, work, and 
especially His death. It was these very Scriptures He 
used to prove to them "the things concerning Himself." 
There would be some force in his argument if the Gospel 
was for the Jew only. Why should those New Testament 
writers foist a religious language exclusively Jewish upon 
the Grecian, Roman, or Corinthian peoples, none of whom 
were familiar with those things which distinguished the 
Jewish from all other religions? Certain places, services, 
and days were sacred to the Jew, which a Gentile could 
not understand. Being first separated from the Gentile 
world, they received those customs, services, and sacrifices 
by a revelation made to Moses as essential to an accept- 
able worship of God. Their progress or decline centered 
around a faithful performance of all those requirements. 
Christ taught His disciples that His death was the fulfill- 
ment of this typical system of worship. So thoroughly 
convinced were they of that fact, that it formed the prin- 
cipal part of their writing and preaching. The Old Testa- 
ment language was not "necessary" in preaching the gos- 
pel Professor Bowne advocates. All he declares could 
have been expressed in the language of Greece or Rome 



THE ATONEMENT. 



27 



independent of the Old Testament Scriptures. This is his 
gospel : 

PROFESSOR BOWNE'S GOSPEL. 

"We see the love of God in the gift of His Son, and the love 
of Christ in His work for us, and the gracious condition in which, 
as the result of that work, we find ourselves. The forgiveness of 
sin is proclaimed. The Divine love is declared, and the Divine 
help is proffered to all. This is the clear revelation which 
emerges from these forms of speech ; and this is a Divine Gospel 
which is worthy of all acceptation.'" 3 

If, as Professor Bowne says, "Any revelation which 
might be made to men must be cast in the existing molds 
of thought and expression," why did the apostles borrow 
a strange language and radically opposite molds of 
thought and expression to introduce Christianity among 
the .Gentiles ? The gospel of blood, of altar, of temple, of 
ransom, of redemption, was declared to them in the plain- 
est terms as essential to the blessings of the great salva- 
tion. They had bloody sacrifices, altars, temples, and 
priests, but they were not used as "the existing molds of 
thought and expression." They were required to turn 
from Gentile to Jewish sacrifices for the symbolical lan- 
guage which set forth the Gospel of Jesus Christ, because 
it contained something concerning Christ no other relig- 
ious rite contained. The Gentiles had no "Passover" nor 
"day of atonement." They had nothing which suggested 
the fundamental truth of the Christian religion, and, while 
Jewish sacrifices were essential to the Divine favor until 



18 P. 15. 



28 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



fulfilled in Christ, Gentile sacrifices were "an abomination 
unto the Lord." Their sacrifices could not suggest a 
redeemer from sin, and in no sense did Christ fulfill them. 

THE IMPRESSION FOUNDED UPON FACTS. 

In studying the Scriptures millions have received a 
different impression concerning the nature of sin, guilt, 
condemnation, pardon, forgiveness, regeneration, and 
sanctification from that which Professor Bowne has. Act- 
ing upon their impressions they have pursued a different 
course altogether than the one he teaches to procure sal- 
vation. This has produced an experience which he denies 
as real or Scriptural. He says : 

"If sin be thought of as a debt, it is paid. If it be thought of 
as slavery, we are redeemed or ransomed. If it be thought of as 
guilt demanding atonement and propitiation and expiation, there 
has been one supreme sacrifice for sin. If we think of the medi- 
ating high priest of the old Temple, we, too, have a Mediator and 
a High Priest — Jesus, the Son of God, who has passed into the 
heavens, where He ever liveth to make intercession for us. If 
we think of our guilt and unworthiness, we are clothed with the 
righteousness of Christ and are accepted in the Beloved." 19 "One 
who has been saved from sin and restored to righteousness and 
the Divine favor, may think well of himself as redeemed and ran- 
somed, or as freed from debts he could never pay. And he might 
also well and truly think of his Savior as having offered Himself 
up as a sacrifice for him, as having died for him and redeemed 
him by His blood. But this is the language of emotion, and de- 
votion, and gratitude, and discipleship. It is the language of the 
Christian heart and life, not the language of theological theory." 20 

Why should one think of sin as a debt, if it is not a 
debt ; if one under its dominion is not a slave ; if it needs 



19P. 23. 20 P . 3I . 



THE ATONEMENT. 



29 



no atonement or sacrifice ; or if one has not been ran- 
somed ; or if Christ has not offered Himself up as a sacri- 
fice, or died for him and redeeemd him by His blood? 
Alas ! alas ! here is emotion, gratitude, and devotion even 
"unto death" for what never occurred. I think so. I feel 
so. I say so. But it is not true. When I say Christ "died 
for my sins," I should say Christ was incarnate to reveal 
the Father. When I say I am free, I should say I now 
recognize that I was never bound. While calling myself 
a slave of sin, I should have been calling myself a son of 
God. When I say I have been redeemed by the blood of 
Christ as of a Lamb without blemish, I ought to have 
ignored the Jewish figures of blood and Lamb, and stated 
that I discover the gracious condition in which, as the 
result of the incarnation, I find myself. Christ has not 
procured forgiveness ; He simply declares it. I may think 
He is all the Scriptures declare concerning Him, but it is 
because I am a child in thought, and "only slowly pass 
beyond images to conceptions." With many of us our 
profoundest impressions of the love of God were received 
at Calvary. Professor Bowne says not. He says : 

THE INCARNATION THE ATONEMENT. 

"God must be revealed as a moral being, and in such a way 
as to make forever sure both His love and His holiness, and to 
furnish the supreme incentive to repentance and righteousness 
and love on the part of man. This is done by the incarnation of 
the Divine Son, who reveals the heart of the Father, not in word, 
but in deed, so that God is manifest in the flesh for the salvation 
of men." 21 "The incarnation is the central truth of Christianity ; 



21 p. 96. 



3° 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



and the incarnation is the central fact of the atonement."" "In 
the fullness of His devotion the Divine Son entered into human 
limitations, lives the perfect life before men, shows God's thought 
for men, comes into contact with our sin also, submits to its 
outrage and violence, and becomes obedient unto death, even the 
death of the Cross." 23 "And if one should say. 'Well, if that is 
all ; if the sole work of Christ was to reveal the Father, and to 
bring men to God, what need was there for His life and death?' 
the answer would be : How otherwise could the Father be effect- 
ively and dynamically revealed? Love is poorly revealed in 
words, though attended by never so many miracles ; no writings 
spread across the sky could make any such living revelation of 
God and His character as is made in the incarnation and life of 
our Lord. And the revelation which He made derives its deep 
significance, not from what He said, nor from what He did, but 
from what He was." 24 

Heretofore we sought relief for guilt at the Cross. 
Professor Bowne does not recognize guilt. We have re- 
joiced because "unto us a Savior was given," and cele- 
brated it with appropriate gratitude and emotion ; but we 
found the profoundest emotion at Calvary, and our great- 
est gratitude because "He gave Himself for us," not to 
us. Perhaps in the coming New Testament arrangements 
can be made to have a penitent thief at Bethlehem, and the 
wise men giving their gifts at Calvary. Christ in His 
mother's arms is a poor substitute for Christ on Calvary, 
or as the High Priest of the household of God. 

According to this theory, when Jesus was born the 
atonement was made. Is it not strange that Jesus did not 
enjoin the Church to commemorate His birth until His 
coming again? The Church has been celebrating His 
death as a sacrament, and not His incarnation. If John's 



22 P. 109. 23 p. 9 6. 2-ip, I0 8, 



THE ATONEMENT. 



31 



vision represents the truth, as things in heaven appeared 
to him, he saw them worshiping not the "Babe," but the 
"Lamb," saying : "Thou art worthy to take the book, and 
to open the seals thereof: for Thou wast slain and hast 
redeemed us to God by Thy blood." The company of the 
redeemed had "washed their robes and made them white 
in the blood of the Tamb." Washing, purifying, cleans- 
ing, are all absent in Professor Bowne's theory of the 
atonement. What he calls sin is "outgrown," conse- 
quently, literal or figurative, there is no purgation of sin 
in his theory. 

THE LAMB OF GOD. 

God incarnate ! Well may he anticipate the question 
his empty theory awakens. "If that is all, . . . what 
need was there for His life and sufferings and death?" 
He does not tell us why Jesus "began," near the close of 
His life, to show unto His disciples that He became in- 
carnate for the purpose of dying "in our stead." Nor 
why at the last supper He took the cup and said, "This 
cup is the new testament in My blood which is shed for 
you." Or why He so greatly desired to eat the Passover 
with them, saying, "I will not eat any more thereof until 
it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." Will Professor 
Bowne tell us when the Passover was fulfilled, and who 
fulfilled it? If Christ fulfilled it, He was our Passover, 
not because we "think so," but we think so because He was 
so. When He said, "All things must be fulfilled which 
were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, 



32 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



and in the Psalms concerning Him," "Thus it is written, 
and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the 
dead the third day : and that repentance and remission 
of sins should be preached in His name among all nations," 
He must have found something in the law of Moses "con- 
cerning Himself" which satisfied the minds of the dis- 
ciples. Nowhere in the law of Moses is a single reference 
to be found concerning the sufferings of Christ, except it 
be in the Levitical sacrifices, — the typical reference to the 
sacrifice of Himself "once for all." Here is the Lamb of 
God, called in the New Testament "our Passover sacri- 
ficed for us," giving up His life on the Cross the same 
day of the month, the same day of the week, the same hour 
of the day in which the paschal lamb was slain in Egypt. 
Is there no significance in the fact that after centuries of 
careful observance of the eventful evening when the first 
lamb shed its blood in Egypt, that on the same month, 
day, and hour, in literal fulfillment of the long established 
type, Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, which taketh away 
the sin of the world, died on the tree for our sins ? 

John saw this same Lamb, "standing as though it had 
been slaughtered," the elders falling down before it sing- 
ing a new song, saying, "Thou art worthy; . . . for 
Thou wast slain and has redeemed us unto God by Thy 
blood." 

When Jesus said He came "to give His life a ransom 
for many," "For this cause I came unto this hour," 
"Father, save Me from this hour; but for this cause came 
I unto this hour/' and "The hour is come that the Son of 



THE ATONEMENT. 



33 



man should be glorified," He was not thinking of His in- 
carnation, already a fact, but something He was about to 
accomplish. When He said, "This is My blood which 
was shed for you," He was not seeking to produce upon 
the minds of the disciples an impression that He was God 
incarnate. They never so refer to this monumental hour. 
Slain from the foundation of the world, symbolized in the 
law of Moses, foretold in the prophecies, announced at 
the incarnation, He became the author of an eternal sal- 
vation by the sacrifice of Himself. Holding the symbolic 
cup in His hand, He was not thinking of Bethlehem, but 
Calvary. He told His disciples He would drink no more 
of the fruit of the vine until that which the Passover sig- 
nified was fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 

This is not the language of emotion. With the shadow 
of the Cross falling deeply upon His pathway Jesus de- 
clared that by the shedding of His blood sins should be 
remitted. Jesus Christ literally shed His blood according 
to a determinate counsel of God. In some peculiar sense 
"once for all" Christ died for the sins of the world. No 
Lawgiver, Prophet, Priest, or Apostle appeared at any 
time to "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." This 
unique distinction belongs to the Lamb of God alone. 
How quickly Grecian thought would have accepted the 
doctrine of the incarnation as a ground of forgiveness, 
instead of the gospel of "Christ crucified!" — not merely 
the historic fact of Christ's crucifixion, but Christ cruci- 
fied for our sins, to reconcile God to us and us to God. It 
is not alone in the Divine Son being incarnate that the 
3 



34 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



love of God is revealed which awakens repentance and 
procures forgiveness, but "Hereby perceive we the love 
of God, because He laid down His life for us." A Savior 
who could die to make possible the righteousness of man, 
is a God of love in a deeper and fuller sense than the one 
the Professor declares. While incarnate, His love could 
only awaken admiration ; but when it takes on its sacri- 
ficial aspect it creates special obligation. Love meeting 
the demands of a violated law, revealing conjointly the 
holiness, righteousness, justice, and mercy of God, creates 
a profounder impression than the moral view possibly can. 
and such love is typified in the Levitical sacrifices and 
declared in the language of the Scriptures. 

CHRIST'S DEATH GIVES TRUE MEANING TO THE IN- 
CARNATION. 

It is the sacrificial death of Christ which explains the 
incarnation. The meaning and object of the incarnation 
was thoroughly misunderstood until Christ showed His 
disciples the Scriptures concerning Himself. They then 
saw that He was incarnate to fulfill those Scriptures. 
They could only find the mission of Christ in studying 
Moses in the Levitical Code. They found him in the lamb 
led to the slaughter in Isaiah, on whom the Lord laid the 
iniquity of us all. Such was the impression made upon 
the minds of the disciples when Jesus opened their under- 
standing, that to the end of their lives they emphasized 
His death as essential to salvation. The opposition such 
preaching aroused ; the blasting of every fond Jewish hope 
in their own breasts ; the sacrifice of life such preaching 



THE ATONEMENT. 



35 



demanded, surely could not have been met by other than 
a most profound conviction that such was the truth as it 
is in Jesus. Professor Bowne's theory impeaches Christ 
Himself, and makes Him create a wrong impression upon 
the minds of the early Church, and they through the long 
centuries since. In no instance does a sacred writer refer 
to the incarnation "for our sins," nor that Christ wrought 
miracles "for our sins," nor prophesied "for our sins;" 
but they frequently say He "died for our sins." Salvation 
is nowhere offered in the Scriptures because Christ is 
Divine, nor yet because He is human, or both. It is al- 
ways because He died for our sins, and rose from the dead 
for our justification. Salvation as an experience has no 
basis in Professor Bowne's theory. We may think we are 
forgiven, but we are not. Millions have testified that, 
after true repentance and confession of sins (which some- 
times implies restitution) through faith in the sacrificial 
death of Christ, they have received an assurance of par- 
doned sin and power over sin. They believed all the Pro- 
fessor denies, and have induced millions more to believe 
the same, who testify to the same assurance. Such has 
been the diversity of the witnesses, so unfaltering and 
steadfast their faith, that unless their experiences can be 
proven untrue, they would seem to establish the divine- 
ness of the method they followed. 

IS OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY LEGENDARY? 

I should be glad to know that he does not consider the 
story of Cain and Abel a myth. If not, who made the 
impression on Abel's mind which caused him to offer "a 



36 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained 
witness that he was righteous, God testifying to his gifts ?" 
Here is Divine testimony of a twofold nature — a testimony 
to personal righteousness, and a testimony to the excel- 
lence of the gift through which he was made righteous. 
The Scriptures say "by faith" Abel offered unto God a 
more excellent sacrifice than Cain. God revealed to him 
the true sacrifice for sin. Abel obeyed the revelation, 
offered his sacrifice, and God approved it. Cain could 
have offered the same sacrifice, and equally have obtained 
the Divine favor. Thus commenced the battle of the ages 
concerning an atonement for sin. The same battle is with 
us to-day. 

We have struck the fundamental error of this theory. 
God is in Christ; this incarnation makes a gracious con- 
dition; forgiveness is proclaimed and help offered. The 
propitiatory work of Christ is denied as a condition of 
forgiveness. This he does of necessity, as he must ex- 
clude all questions of law and government in a forensic 
way to sustain his theory. 

If language can mean anything, the language of Scrip- 
ture has created a most profound impression that God is 
not ready to receive sinners without a satisfaction for 
their sins, demanded by His personal righteousness. If 
this is not true, how did the personal friends of the Savior, 
taught from His own lips, without a note of warning, use 
the very expressions they should above all others have 
avoided, if they did not intend to teach that Christ's death 
was substitutional, sacrificial, and satisfactional ? Surely 



THE ATONEMENT. 



37 



they were not advocates of the moral view ; had they been, 
they might easily have changed their mode of expression 
while in the transition from Judaism to Christianity, by 
simply stating that Christ's incarnation fulfilled all essen- 
tial prophecy and promise concerning him as a sacrifice 
for sin. 

JEWISH SACRIFICES ARE TRUE TYPES. 

From the beginning of the race down to Christ the 
sacrifices of the Bible are unvarying in their central figure ; 
viz., the shedding of blood as an atonement for sin. Adam 
is covered with a skin requiring the shedding of blood. 
Abel offered a bleeding victim, and obtained witness that 
he was righteous. Noah ratified his covenant, as did 
Abraham, with sacrifices. Before the Levitical Code was 
given the children of Israel offered sacrifices as the di- 
vinely approved manner of worship ; and later accepted 
as from God the law and its supplementary statutes, agree- 
ing to observe them, which promise was ratified with 
blood. These statutes required "the shedding of blood 
for the remission of sins," and also required a constant 
offering of blood for the purification of the forgiven one. 
At no time could any one approach God without blood. 
Nor can one be more successful now. To conduct these 
sacrifices with essential accuracy and sacredness, God 
Himself appointed priests who must approach Him 
through an offering of blood. Israel could no more sub- 
stitute these sacrifices with something less costly, or less 
distasteful to the nations around them, than we can to-day 



38 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



ignore the blood of the everlasting covenant, and be as- 
sured of the favor of God. Nor could they imitate the 
sacrifices of the heathen, which were "an abomination to 
the Lord." All this was Divinely chosen to typify a per- 
fect order of salvation which was "yet to come." The 
tabernacle, the priest, the altar, the victim, its qualities, 
its mode of death, the sprinkling of the blood on the 
mercy-seat and the altar ; everything was Divinely selected 
and appointed. The Passover and the day of Atonement 
had a special meaning, and it was that meaning Jesus 
made clear to the disciples when He began with Moses 
and showed them the things concerning Himself. No 
wonder He had put them at rest as He filled with spirit 
and life the forms with which they had been familiar so 
long. They had known Him for years, witnessed His 
miracles, heard His teachings and His declarations of the 
Father's love. He had promised them seats on thrones 
judging the twelve tribes of Israel. They saw Him fulfill 
His offices of Miracle-worker, Prophet, and Teacher, and 
they had promised to die with Him, and yet, though He 
had constantly declared all the Gospel Professor Bowne 
teaches, He did not awaken enough love in the hearts of 
His most intimate disciples to enable them to keep the 
promises of faithfulness they so earnestly made. It was 
not until Christ the Mediator, Priest, Redeemer, Lamb of 
God, had fulfilled the types concerning Himself found in 
the Scriptures, that they obtained that love for Him which 
made them glory in the Cross, because they saw glory in 
it, from which they fled before. To them it was no longer 



THB ATONHMBNT. 39 



an instrument of cruelty, but the power of God unto sal- 
vation. Life itself was not dear to them in defense of the 
doctrine of the Cross. 

When they saw that which seemed to them loss and 
failure turned into a glorious fulfillment of the Scriptures 
concerning Christ, and that He ought to have suffered 
these things and entered into His glory, their hearts 
burned within them. Since that eventful walk to Em- 
maus, millions of hearts have been strangely warmed by 
the revelation of the same truth. Evolution ends in the 
Incarnation. Christianity and its life-imparting power 
comes from Calvary. He says : 

"It is conceivable that a Christian agnosticism should content 
itself with accepting the fact without any theory whatever." "The 
Scriptures themselves deal mainly with the fact, and give no 
single consistent theory." 25 "God was in Christ reconciling the 
world unto Himself; and God in Christ, not for Christ's sake, 
forgives us." 26 

One may well look with suspicion upon a book on the 
atonement which, from the beginning to the end, ignores 
the "fact" that Christ died for our sins. He is compelled 
to admit that Christ died on the Cross ; but he ignores the 
object for which He died. With him, to believe that God 
was in Christ is all that is necessary for forgiveness. 
Christ "was," that is all. He did nothing whereby we 
must be saved. 

Addressing the Corinthian Church, Paul states "that 
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures." 
How could this be, unless the Old Testament foretold that 



25 P. 20. 



26 p. 45- 



40 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



Christ would die for our sins? Isaiah said, "It pleased 
the Lord to bruise Him ; He hath put Him to grief." He 
was "stricken and smitten of God." "The Lord laid upon 
Him the iniquity of us all." Professor Bowne says Christ 
"came into contact with our sin." Isaiah said the Lord 
laid our sin upon Him. Paul says He died "in our stead." 
God "made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin ; that 
we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." 
He was made something that we might be made some- 
thing. Surely this something was "for Christ's sake." 
He was made a sin-bearer, something more than coming 
in contact with sin. Physicians come in contact with dis- 
eases, sympathetically enter into the condition of the pa- 
tients, apply remedies, but do not procure them. Christ 
proclaimed forgiveness of sins, and demonstrated His 
right to do so, long before He came to Gethsemane and 
Calvary. When He died the "just for the unjust," He 
revealed the method by which He established the right to 
forgive sins. To His death is attributed the removal of 
"the curse of the law," by His becoming a curse for us. 
He did something, once for all, He never did before, and 
can never do again, "once in the end of the world hath 
He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." 
This can not mean that He declared forgiveness once ; He 
frequently did so, and continues to do so. No, He was 
"made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of 
death," "that He by the grace of God should taste death 
for every man." He was made a perfect Savior and Re- 
deemer through the suffering of death, "that through 



THE ATONEMENT. 41 



death He might destroy him that hath the power of death." 
He conquered "death by sin," with a "sacrifice for sin," 
and it was for this He partook of flesh and blood. The 
death of Christ was according to a Divine plan and pur- 
pose. Jesus said : "Thou couldst have no power at all 
against Me except it were given thee from above." 
"Therefore doth My Father love Me, because I lay down 
My life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it from 
Me, but I lay it down of Myself." It is this voluntariness 
which gives value to His obedience. He did not merely 
submit to the inevitable. The will of God, which is equiv- 
alent to His law, required a redemption price, and Jesus 
came to pay it. Why God should require it may never 
be clear to us ; but He has so stated, or the Scriptures are 
false. Having Himself absolutely furnished the sacrifice 
to make it possible for Him to be "just and the justifier 
of the believer," there can be nothing unreasonable in His 
demanding it or supplying it. If a feature of truth, 
utterly ignored by Professor Bowne, is met by this fact, 
we do no violence to our reason to strive to understand it, 
nor can we more fatally miss our way than He has with a 
theory of the atonement which denies the most of the 
Holy Scriptures. Christ had an appointed task. It was 
not to die by crucifixion, or between two thieves. He 
died before crucifixion could have made it possible. When 
His soul was exceeding sorrowful unto death, He did not 
appeal to humanity once to deal more tenderly with Him, 
nor did He emphasize His physical agonies. He cried 
to His Father to let "this cup pass" from Him. It was 



42 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



not a question of being permitted to use power. He said : 
"Thinkest thou that I can not now pray to My Father, and 
He shall presently give Me more than twelve legions of 
angels? But how, then, shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, 
that thus it must be." He was not seeking deliverance 
from the crucifixion of His body; He was in the act of 
giving "His soul an offering for sin." He was being 
"bruised by the Lord," as Isaiah said He would be. His 
life was the ransom price, to make possible the salvation 
of the race ; and that ransom price was not paid until His 
life was actually given. His soul was straightened till it 
was accomplished. Paul says, "I delivered unto you, first 
of all, that Christ died for our sins." This truth he says 
he "received of the Lord." Surely it was not that Christ 
died on the Cross that was revealed to him. The nation 
was never so astir over anything as that ; but it was that 
He died "for our sins," which was already stirring so 
many hearts, and that this truth was according to the 
Scriptures. Our sins, sacrificially borne, caused His 
death, and not His being nailed to the accursed tree. 

GOD'S WRATH. 

Professor Bowne admits that God's wrath abides upon 
a certain class. He says : 

"The love of God, like parental love, takes the will for the 
deed, bears with weakness and misfortune, avails itself of all the 
resources of discipline and waits for development; but if any one 
regardeth iniquity in his heart, the wrath of God abideth on him; 
and any doctrine to the contrary is heresy." 27 



27 p. 92. 



THE ATONEMENT. 



43 



This accords with other passages of Scripture. "God 
is angry with the wicked every day." "For the wrath of 
God is revealed from neaven against all ungodliness and 
unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unright- 
eousness." God's whole bearing toward the sinner shows 
that this wrath is not a spirit of resentment, or vindictive- 
ness, though personal. The very persons with whom God 
is angry are the persons for whom He gave His Son as a 
Redeemer. His wrath is personal and judicial. Violated 
law must be honored, as well as the sinner pardoned. The 
sinner must be rightly related to the law as well as to the 
Lawgiver. Any salvation ignoring the law, is not the 
Gospel of the Son of God. Christ really gave Himself. 
The Father really gave the Son a ransom for sinners. 
What Christ was, was necessary to give value to what 
He did; but what He did, and not merely what He was, 
constitutes the Gospel. This is not a question of the inno- 
cent suffering for the guilty. It is infinitely more. It is 
a sacrifice — God's Lamb — Divinely provided, into which 
the person of God enters to show forth His love for the 
race, while maintaining His character for holiness and 
justice. He gave His Son as much to impress us with the 
majesty of His law and the nature of the Lawgiver, as to 
reveal His love. Such a manifestation of love, so costly, 
so impossible for another to make ; dying in our stead, the 
just for the unjust; equally revealing the majesty of the 
law, as well as the compassionate love of God, is tran- 
scendingly beyond what the incarnation reveals. 

That God should inflict a justly merited punishment 



44 MBTHODIST THEOLOGY. 



upon the guilty could but be expected. To forgive with- 
out arousing some sense of the costliness of the pardon 
could neither awaken gratitude nor impress one with the 
turpitude of sin, and thus the very object of the forgive- 
ness be missed. If His wrath is never turned away, He 
is never angry with the wicked. But He can not be 
otherwise. He can not be passive in this matter. He is 
not only sorry that sin exists, but angry at the cause of its 
existence, and more especially because it need not exist 
at all. Sin, in the mind of God, is not "unevolved animal- 
ism ;" it is a crime as well as a moral disease. The base- 
ness of this moral view in its relation to law, is its con- 
demnation. It holds that God's wrath is against those 
who do evil ; but they have nothing to fear from it. We 
are all the children of God, and can not "forfeit member- 
ship in the family," and surely such wrath is not much to 
be feared. This Calvinistic falsehood our fathers over- 
threw a century ago, and it is neither Scriptural nor 
Methodistic, and very unworthy a Professor in a Meth- 
odist university to teach any such a doctrine. If God's 
anger is real, then He has feelings towards sinners because 
they sin, expressed by the word Wrath. He condemns 
sin, and justly so. To save men without recognizing the 
law which condemns them, is to make the law of none 
effect. 

SELF-EXECUTING LAWS. 
Professor Bowne says : 

"In what way is the law magnified and made honorable by 
the suffering of an innocent person, instead of the transgressor? 
In what way would such suffering reveal God's hatred of sin or 



THE ATONEMENT. 



45 



His love for sinners?" 28 "We have not to deal with arbitrary en- 
actments, with penalties arbitrarily attached, but rather with con- 
stitutional law ; that is, with law wrought into the constitution 
of things and executing itself with the inevitability of gravita- 
tion." 29 "In this realm of constitutional law the utmost we may 
hope for, is that consequences may be eliminated by bringing in 
other laws as health eliminates disease." 30 We have, then, an un- 
changeable system of law, not forensic, but expressed in the na- 
ture of things, as the precondition of any moral and intelligible 
order. And this system must be looked upon as an expression of 
the Divine goodness and righteousness ; and being such, it must 
be without variableness or shadow of turning." 31 "The Divine 
law is supposed to have a claim upon the individual or the whole 
race. This claim stands unsatisfied in the court of Divine justice, 
much as a judgment stands on the books of an earthly court; and 
salvation consists in the satisfaction and cancellation of this 
claim." 52 

The terms law, justice, government, governor, and 
their synonyms, as found in the Scriptures, are terms ex- 
ceedingly perplexing to Professor Bowne. He makes all 
moral law constitutional and capable of "executing itself." 
Can he cite a single instance of law executing itself? In 
his "Theism" he says": "For ourselves we do not hesitate 
to allow that the natural is a constant miracle, and that 
all things stand and all events come to pass because of the 
omnipotent power of God." 33 

Law as "expressed in the nature of things" was put 
there by an absolutely holy, just, and good Being, and He 
is omnipresent as well as omnipotent to execute it. The 
nature of things is the outcome of God's free choice. 
Things are as they are in nature, because He wills them 
to be so, and His will is not arbitrary, consequently we 

28 P. 50. 29 p. 78 . 30 p. 8 2 . 31 p. 83. 32 p. I30 . 33 p. 3^. 



4 6 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



do not "deal with arbitrary enactments," nor "with pen- 
alties arbitrarily attached," nor yet with self-executing 
laws. Where He has created beings free, law may be 
broken, and this incurs not only personal blameworthiness 
but Divine wrath, and Divine wrath is not self-inflicted. 
This wrath must be appeased, and God has provided a 
method of doing so in the sacrificial death of His Son. 
Through this sacrifice He declares pardon, justification, 
and salvation to all believers, and this declaration has for 
centuries met the most profound inquiries of the race con- 
cerning sin and its penalties. Millions have found peace 
in thus believing, and have also found in the sacrificial 
death of our Lord the strongest possible motives to cause 
them to cease sin. Christ fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy. 
"He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised 
for our iniquities ; the chastisement of our peace was upon 
Him; and with His stripes we are healed." If God has 
arranged a plan by which the chastisement of Christ se- 
cures peace between Him and mankind, and through it 
we have peace with God, we need not care what theory 
denies it, so long as we enjoy the experience. God thus 
provided the means to give majesty to His law, and yet 
exercise mercy by removing the ill-desert of our sins, and 
awaken a most profound love for the Savior. 

Physical law is never broken. It may be ignored and 
the transgressor suffer ; but it is never broken. Moral law 
is God's will concerning moral beings. It can never 
change, because it is the law of His own being. It was 
in harmony with this law He made man, and it has a 



THE ATONEMENT. 



47 



claim upon the individual and upon the whole race. Ac- 
cording to Professor Bowne's theory man never was in 
harmony with moral law ; he is only in a process of be- 
coming. I wonder if he ever reached conformity to law 
in his "animal beginnings" before he evolved into crude 
spiritual being ? The Scriptures teach that Adam and the 
moral law were in harmony when he was created. Like 
the law, he was constitutionally holy, just, and good. He 
broke the law, and as a consequence man is constitution- 
ally opposed to moral law; he is not subject to it, neither 
indeed can he be. He is not a subject for development 
or evolution, but re-creation. He needs to be "created 
anew in righteousness and true holiness." His difficulty 
is neither weakness or an undeveloped state, but inherent 
opposition to God and His law, and neither time, patience, 
nor age-long processes can reach the difficulty. The will 
which willed to disobey moral law originated a change in 
man's moral nature, and now he possesses a "spirit of dis- 
obedience" which is antagonistic to what God wills ; inde- 
pendent of the will which originated it. 

If constitutional law was the only standard of morals 
to-day, we would be without a true standard. Instead of 
a nature constituted according to Divine law, we have a 
nature contrary to it. To look to constitutional law as 
we discover it in ourselves, for a standard of right, is folly 
indeed. By breaking the law man has incapacitated him- 
self to conceive what should be the standard governing 
him unaided by Divine revelation. However, God and 
His law remains, and His demands have never changed, 



48 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



though sin has made it impossible for them to be met. 
From the standard, "Do this and thou shalt live," man- 
kind has nothing to hope. He must not only remain under 
condemnation for his past, but his future is hopelessly in- 
volved because of the state of his being. The atonement 
provides for his past. The work of the Spirit for his 
present and eternal life. 

NO ATONEMENT FOR THE PAST. 

Professor Bowne makes no provision for the past. 

He says : 

"They have insisted that the consequences of sin can not be 
canceled without an atonement, but have signally failed to see 
that they are not canceled even with an atonement." 34 "We might 
well fancy, in some moment of moral relaxation or of half vision, 
that there ought to be absolute forgiveness upon repentance, with 
relaxation of all penalty. This notion would root in the nervous 
sensibility, rather than in the moral reason. . . . Its plaus- 
ibility rests upon oversight of the distinction between forgiveness 
as the removal of personal displacence, and forgiveness as the 
canceling of natural organic consequences. The sentimentalist 
fails to see that consequences are not forgiven." 35 "Sinners, 
rather than sins, are forgiven." 36 Am I, then, never to get clear 
of my past. That depends upon the meaning. Through the grace 
and the gracious help of God I may get clear of the sinful life, 
and emerge into the life of the Spirit. The healing and restoring 
resources of God are great, and thus I may hope to remove the 
scars and undo the evil. But that the past should be made non- 
existent, or memory blotted out, or the entail of consequences 
arbitrarily cut off, this is not to be hoped for, because it ought 
not to be. The past has a mortgage on the future." 37 



3 * P. 85. 35 p. 85. 36 p. m. 37 P. 114. 



THE ATONEMENT. 



49 



CONTRADICTS CHRIST. 

He says : "Sinners rather than sins are forgiven." 
Jesus said to sinners, "Thy sins are forgiven thee." The 
reader can decide which to believe. He says : "We may 
hope to remove the scars and undo the evil." I ask, What 
scars can we remove? Sin wounds more than the one 
who commits it. No man can prevent his progeny from 
suffering degradation on account of his sins. Adam's 
fall cursed the race. Mankind is cursed in his heredity 
and in his environment. Our misdeeds often hasten other 
souls to a more rapid ruin than ourselves. How can I 
remove the scars my sins have made upon others? How 
can I undo the evil I have committed in the past ? I give 
a neighbor strong drink. Inebriation has not existed in 
his family for generations. He becomes a drunkard, kills 
his loving wife, imparts to his offspring a fearful desire 
for drink ; he is hung for murder, and goes into eternity 
to meet a drunkard's doom. Professor Bowne has said 
much about reasoning in the abstract; now will he take 
this common concrete case, and tell us how we are going 
to remove these scars and undo this past? 

Some of the consequences of sin are "not canceled 
even with the atonement." The Scriptures do not teach 
that consequences are canceled, nor does any wise theo- 
logian ; penalties are. Physical death, as a consequence 
of sin, is not canceled ; but the penalty of eternal death is 
removed ; and even physical death, to a believer, is a rest- 
ful sleep. While graces are developed under suffering, 
4 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



weaknesses and even agonies produced by disease. We 
must not confound sins, penalties, and natural conse- 
quences. The deliberate, unholy, self-determination to 
evil which awakened Divine wrath is forgiven upon cer- 
tain conditions. As long as the sin is unforgiven, guilt 
and condemnation remain. Sins must be punished or for- 
given ; the law declared the penalty before the sin was 
committed. There are consequences in one's nature as 
the result of sin, as well as penalties yet to be inflicted, 
should the gracious conditions of the gospel be ignored. 
The sin is personal, and in a sense collective. The conse- 
quences are natural and universal. The penalty is Di- 
vinely imposed ; that is, directly inflicted. God has de- 
clared that forgiveness honors the law, maintains His 
righteousness, sutains His justice, as truly as inflicting the 
penalty attached to disobedience. The natural conse- 
quences remain the same, whether one is pardoned or pun- 
ished, and must be met by another process altogether. 
The mystery of this adjustment of the Divine administra- 
tion to the needs of lost souls will likely remain an object 
of belief forever. The fact is duly accredited by the 
Divine procedure, and His gracious administration cor- 
roborates the explicit statements of the Scriptures. A 
Divinely-imparted peace results from this very faith. Par- 
don changes the legal relation of the sinner, while forgive- 
ness removes the displacence between God and the soul. 

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law." 
"Jesus which delivered us from the wrath to come." "For 
the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me 



THE ATONEMENT. 



51 



free from the law of sin and death." "There is therefore 
now no condemnation." These passages, with many more 
of the same import, certainly imply more than Divine dis- 
placence. Curse, wrath, sin and death, and condemna- 
tion are legal disabilities which are removed when one 
becomes a believer. Subjective consequences also follow 
our faith : guilt, condemnation, remorse, shame, fear of 
death, fear of man, cease ; and pardon, peace, reconcili- 
ation with God, joy in the Holy Ghost, victory over death, 
righteousness, regeneration, holiness, and eternal life en- 
sue, which imply much more than the removal of Divine 
displacence. Glorious consequences following the removal 
of sin by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, whom "God set 
forth as a propitiation to declare His righteousness for 
the remission of sins that are past." 

Yes, Professor, past sins are remitted, and God is 
righteous in doing so, and He is able to instantly undo 
much that sin has done, nor has God left Himself without 
witnesses. 

Guilt is not a "natural organic consequence." It is a 
consequent of the denial of the rights and claims of the 
law. It is not with "self-acting laws" of a spiritual uni- 
verse, but with a living- personal God, the righteous Judge 
and Ruler of the universe, that we have to do. The testi- 
mony of His Word and the dictates of our own moral 
nature assure us that by sin we are excluded from His 
favor, and justly exposed to the endurance of His wrath. 
And hence no method of salvation can avail us which does 



52 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



not provide for the canceling of our guilt, as well as the 
removal of our sinfulness. 

If God possesses the attribute of justice, it must be 
from its very nature a judicial attribute. Law and its 
penalties must be administered according to the strictest 
terms of justice. Nature has no ability to inflict penalties 
for violating law. Law has neither power to provide or 
accept a substitute. Substitution is not taught in nature, 
nor by law. The Author and Administrator of law alone 
could provide and arrange for a substitute for penalty. 
Christ is that substitute, and He has redeemed us from 
the curse of the law, while He has magnified the law in 
doing so. The Scriptures do not teach that Christ suf- 
fered the penalty of our sins ; if He did so, mankind could 
not be punished for unbelief. Christ is God's substitute 
for penalty, which honors Him and His law. This is not 
demonstrated by any process of reasoning, though it is 
not unreasonable. It is Divinely stated, and it to be be- 
lieved on the part of those who receive its benefits. Some- 
thing must take the place of penalty if the sinner is for- 
given. 

SUBSTITUTE FOR AN ATONEMENT. 
Professor Bowne's substitute is repentance. He says : 

''Forgiveness upon repentance, with the limits hereafter to be 
mentioned, is entirely in order.' ,3S "The condition of such forgive- 
ness would be true repentance ; that is, a heart-felt repudiation 
and condemnation of the deed, and a purpose to rectify the wrong 
done as far as possible. With God and man alike such repentance 
should remove personal displacence, and restore the offender to 



THB ATONBMHNT. 



53 



harmonious relations of will with the one sinned against" 30 "God 
must be revealed as a moral being, and in such a way as to make 
forever sure both His love and His holiness, and to furnish the 
supreme incentive to repentance and righteousness and love on 
the part of men. This is done by the incarnation of the Divine 
Son, who reveals the heart of the Father, not in word, but in 
deed, so that God is manifest in the flesh for the salvation of 
men." 40 

THE INCARNATION PROCURES FORGIVENESS. 

These statements are clear. The supreme incentive to 
repentance is the incarnation. The condition of forgive- 
ness is true repentance. Professor Bowne sees something 
must occur before the sinner is reconciled to God. But 
he also says, "God in Christ, not for Christ's sake, for- 
gives us." That is, the incarnation is the supreme incent- 
ive to repentance. Yet we are commanded to forgive one 
another, "even as God, for Christ's sake, hath forgiven 
you." Who is right, Paul or Professor Bowne? If the 
Scriptures teach anything, they teach that we are forgiven 
for Christ's sake. Repentance in no sense atones for our 
sins. A most profound sorrow, accompanied with a 
blameless life, does not remove the liabilities against the 
sinner. The incarnation is nowhere set forth in the Scrip- 
tures as the supreme incentive to repentance. In the 
utter absence of all those Scriptures which speak of the 
blood of Christ as an atonement for sin, it would take 
the utmost stretch of faith to believe that either repentance 
or the incarnation atoned for our past sins. Our reason 
could not accept any act of ours as sufficient, and the fact 
of the incarnation does not answer the questions which 



P. 81. 4° P. 96. 



54 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



inevitably arise in the breast of a guilty soul. It may give 
character to the sacrifice, but it has not a single principle 
of sacrifice manifested in it. 

DISPLACES THE OBJECT OF FAITH. 

Professor Bowne displaces the object of an evangelical 
faith — viz., the blood of Jesus Christ — with the incarna- 
tion. "Having made peace through the blood of His Cross," 
Christ offered terms of reconciliation between man and 
God; and now beseeches men to remove every hindrance 
in the way of this reconciliation being mutual. The legal 
forfeitures are provided for in His sacrificial death, and 
God proceeds to deal with man's moral turpitude in a 
gracious way. Being a moral nature, a radical moral 
change must be wrought in him ; without this change 
the adjustment of the legal relations would be valueless. 
"Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemp- 
tion that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to 
be a propitiation through faith in His blood ; to declare 
His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, 
through the forbearance of God. To declare, I say, at 
this time His righteousness : that He might be just and 
the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus." While we 
were "enemies" Christ died for us, the just for the un- 
just (not the innocent for the guilty). On the ground of 
this propitiation we are declared legally righteous, or justi- 
fied. Glorious truth! This accords with Isaiah's state- 
ment : "In that day thou shalt say, O Lord, I will praise 
Thee; though Thou wast angry with me, Thine anger is 



THE ATONEMENT. 



55 



turned away, and Thou comfortest me." Surely he did 
not mean to convey the idea that he had ceased to feel 
angry toward God. God's anger had been turned away. 
The enmity of men to God is not removed by anything 
Christ has done in the past ; it secures the Divine favor, 
removes the Divine displeasure with men, and this in turn 
is calculated to induce the removal of our enmity toward 
God. None of the Gospel writers refer to anything man 
did to effect reconciliation between God and man. 

MORAL LAW UNCHANGEABLE. 

The idea that God has changed His law because of the 
depraved condition of mankind is puerile indeed. God's 
moral law is unchangeable and irrevocable. This very 
idea necessitates the very plan of redemption the Scrip- 
tures set forth. God can not ignore His own law, which 
is His sovereign will. He can not will to do so ; in other 
words, He can not dishonor Himself ; neither can He sanc- 
tion any who dishonor His law. Has not a judge a right 
to feel certain displeasure toward transgressors who break 
the law and interfere with the happiness and welfare of 
society ? 

The law governing human beings must have existed 
in the mind of the Lawgiver before any human beings 
existed. God placed that law in the constitution of man ; 
man has broken the law, and is constitutionally perverse. 
This perversity can only be reached by a constitutional 
change, or re-creation. His very perversity makes him 
incapable of knowing what is true, just, holy, and good. 



56 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



Lawlessness reigns everywhere. He is not subject to law, 
neither indeed can be in his present natural fallen con- 
dition. Nevertheless, the law of God has not changed, 
and this law, and not the condition produced by sin, is 
God's unchanging standard by which He must govern 
moral beings. Yes, we have "an unchanging system of 
law," because we have an unchanging Lawgiver ; but that 
law is not revealed in the perverted nature of fallen man, 
but in the Scriptures and by the illumination of the Holy 
Spirit, which reveal to mankind their true relation to the 
Lawgiver. The Scriptures tell us how this discrepancy 
is met. It clearly shows that we did not deserve pardon, 
and equally so, that Christ did not deserve to suffer; but 
that God, "for Christ's sake," forgives us, and that He is 
just in doing so. Had He demanded the penalty of vio- 
lated law from the transgressor, He would be just; cer- 
tainly such would be the natural expectation ; but God 
declares His righteousness in justifying penitent believers. 
Mark you, "His righteousness." This stern quality or at- 
tribute of God stands forth in the atonement in its true 
glory, as clearly as His love. It was not only loving for 
God to give His Son a ransom for us ; it was right. It 
was right for the Son to give Himself to be a propitiation. 
It is right for God to "pardon a sinner through faith in 
Jesus' blood. The Law is satisfied, as truly as the Love of 
God is revealed. 

Here is a Gospel where righteousness, justice, holiness, 
and love are in no sense in conflict. The righteous Judge 
has provided the Sacrifice which vindicates the righteous- 



THH ATONBMBNT. 



57 



ness of faith in His blood ; and it is the Lamb slain which 
is crowned with glory, honor, majesty, and dominion by 
those whom He has redeemed by His blood. 

Repentance has its place in the plan of salvation, but 
no place in procuring redemption or making an atone- 
ment for sin. It is necessary to secure the benefits of the 
atonement, but in no sense necessary to procure redemp- 
tion. A truly repentant sinner claims nothing from God 
on the ground of his repentance. Professor Bowne says 
this repentance is essential to forgiveness. So do we, but 
not the ground of it. Nothing can be plainer than the 
Scriptures concerning the fact that Christ did something 
to procure our forgiveness, which was the end of the law 
for righteousness to every one that believeth. The apos- 
tles thus declared, the Church has reiterated it, that faith 
in Christ's sacrifice was necessary to a conscious forgive- 
ness of sins. Now, for one to state in the face of these 
declarations that repentance is sufficient and most con- 
ducive to honor the law and maintain the authority of 
God's government, and that the atoning sacrifice of Jesus 
Christ is not necessary to forgiveness, is to state that 
which denies the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

It is absurd to talk of God modifying His moral law 
because man has sinned. This is exactly what mankind 
would like. It would diminish his blameworthiness and 
sinfulness, and make little of sin. That God in His ad- 
ministration recognizes all the inevitable consequences of 
the fall, heredity, environment, etc., no wise person would 
question ; but it is because law can not be repealed, and 



58 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



no amount of repentance could meet its demands that God 
provided a ransom. It may accommodate Professor 
Bowne's reason to think God is an indulgent Father ; but 
man's sense of wrong, intensified to some degree of jus- 
tice when he is convicted by the Holy Ghost, increasingly 
magnifies the law, acknowledges his guilt, where hereto- 
fore his unawakened, self-righteous spirit, guided by his 
so-called "moral reason" excused his crime. God never 
has, can, or will modify His moral law while His nature 
remains unchanged. He may be gracious, blending mercy 
with justice, and love with holiness, but not at the cost 
of the honor due to His law, which means His own honor. 
Jesus has fulfilled the law, not merely ratified it. His 
sufferings were not because He came within the reach of 
sin. Millions of martyrs have suffered because of sin a 
greater and more prolonged suffering. Christ met the 
demands of the law ; He honored it by showing its claims 
were right and should be met ; and He honored it by meet- 
ing those claims in His own person, as no one else could 
have met them. It was not a case of "the law magnified 
and made honorable by the suffering of an innocent per- 
son for the guilty ;" a common, every-day occurrence. It 
was not the suffering of a just penalty inflicted upon an 
innocent substitute ; but a satisfaction of the claims of the 
law without inflicting penalty. This is one of its glories, 
penalty is averted, the law is honored, God is just in 
pardoning the sinner, and this fact is the basis of an influ- 
ence leading him to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. 
Christ could have entered most heartily into the Divine 



THE ATONEMENT. 



59 



condemnation of sin, and sympathized with the sinner, 
and utterly have failed to secure his pardon. Not even 
goodness itself, positive, active, Divine, could accomplish 
the task. Goodness — that is, disinterested virtue, doing 
good to others; all this Christ was and did from the be- 
ginning, yet the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not the sum of 
all His goodness ; it is the giving of His life a ransom for 
our sins. For Himself, and to prove His incarnation, He 
must be as good as He was ; to save sinners He must sac- 
rifice Himself by a method prefigured in the Old Testa- 
ment and accepted by Himself as the will of the Father. 

PARABLE OF THE PRODIGAL SON. 

Professor Bowne centers his theology in the parable 
of the prodigal son. He says : 

"Certainly the father of the prodigal son did not have to 
propitiate himself, or have any one else propitiate him, when the 
repentant prodigal came home ; and it is impossible to see any 
greater difficulty in God's. pardon of men." 41 "The father of the 
prodigal son, for instance, did not, after the feast was over, dis- 
tress himself about the debt of filial duty which remained unpaid. 
And we may be sure that the Father in heaven will not unduly 
concern Himself about the debt of the past when His prodigals 
return to their Father's house." 42 

Professor Bowne takes the silence of Jesus, in this in- 
stance, as a proof that no atonement or propitiation was 
necessary to secure God's forgiveness. If Christ had said 
nothing concerning this matter, this statement might have 
some weight. This same Christ said to His disciples : 
"This is My blood of the new testament which is shed 



41 p. 45- 



42 P. HO. 



6o METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



for many for the remission of sins." Must there not be a 
fearful misunderstanding somewhere? What method of 
exegesis is this which makes literal one parable, and the 
other too figurative, in the same chapter? Why does not 
Professor Bowne write about the essential womanhood 
of God and the coinhood of man; or the essential shep- 
herdhood of God and the sheephood of man ? If the Savior 
had illustrated His doctrine with the story of a penitent, 
faithless wife returning to her husband, would He have 
written of the husbandry of God and the wifehood of 
man? 

This parable sets forth the grace of God in forgive- 
ness, with no reference to the meritorious ground on which 
He forgives. Would Professor Bowne be willing to suf- 
fer the consequences of his own method of reasoning, 
and accept passages having no reference whatever to a 
doctrine, as the truth concerning that particular doctrine? 
This parable is as devoid of the doctrine of the incarna- 
tion, which he holds is essential to an atonement, as it is 
of a propitiation. Are we, therefore, to conclude the in- 
carnation was not necessary to forgiveness of sins? He 
advocates a true repentance of a godly sort. Will he 
accept his own method of interpreting the Scriptures? 
Let us take this verse : "In whom we have redemption 
through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to 
the riches of His grace." Is there no such thing as re- 
pentance, because not found in this verse; and may we 
conclude we have redemption through His blood, the for- 



THE ATONEMENT. 



61 



giveness of sins without true repentance? Such is his 
reasoning concerning the parable of the prodigal son. 

If what is not found in this parable is not essential to 
a correct estimate of the character of God, we have a 
strange picture indeed. Nothing is said of the father 
seeking to restrain the prodigal, or plead with him to re- 
main in the family ; he is not warned of his folly and the 
sad ending of such a course, nor indeed is any inquiry 
made concerning him during his absence. Is such the 
attitude of our Heavenly Father concerning His prod- 
igals? It must be according to Professor Bowne's rea- 
sonings. 

FATHER AND SOVEREIGN INSEPARABLE. 

The fallacy of this argument is, ignoring God as Sov- 
ereign. The Father and Sovereign are never separate. 
The one represents Love, the other Righteousness. God 
may be a Father in relation to our being; but must be 
a Sovereign in relation to our actions and destiny. The 
Professor is correct in concluding that the necessity for 
an atonement can not arise in the doctrine of Fatherhood. 
If God is not Governor, then we have no government, and 
need no atonement for sin, pardon for guilt, or forgive- 
ness for the past. 

HE DENIES DEBT ON OUR PART. 

He denies any debt on our part, or cancellation of debt 
on the part of Christ, using an illustration of Coleridge 
as an example of false reasoning. The difficulty with the 



62 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



illustration is, that it is impossible. Legal obligations can 
not be met by moral substitution, but one may make it 
possible to have legal obligations canceled. He equally 
ignores the debt Jesus has imposed upon the race. Love 
is not an abstraction. Its most glorious manifestation is 
in the sacrificial death of Christ for us, which is the ground 
of our forgiveness. If we can dispense with Christ in 
His sacrificial work, we may also in His priestly office, 
and finally by an inevitable logic dispense with Him alto- 
gether as a Savior and Redeemer. Now in both these 
offices He has laid us under the most amazing debt of love 
and gratitude, which can never be met by compliance with 
moral law, which is obligatory upon us all. This is the 
source of our love. If the New Testament teaches any- 
thing, it emphasizes the debt the sacrifice of Christ creates, 
by meeting the demands of the law in our behalf, making 
access to God possible, as no amount of repentance could 
do. He died to lead us to God. We are bought "with 
a price," does not mean we were bought for nothing, or 
with nothing. Christ hath redeemed us. He died for our 
sins, and rose again for our justification. We owe our 
Justifier and Reconciler a debt immeasurably great. 

THE PAST NOT FORGIVEN. 

Professor Bowne is determined that this past, which is 
not atoned for and is not forgiven, shall be undone in 
some way. 

"God presents Himself as ready to co-operate with the sinner 
in working out a better future, which shall in some measure undo 
the past and cut off its entail of evil. The utmost we can hope 



THE ATONEMENT 63 



for is, that the system may be so ordered as to provide for re- 
covery and for our undoing and eliminating the wrong and mis- 
chief that have gone forth from us. And this we ought to su- 
premely desire. What sort of a moral being would he be who 
could rest content, even in Abraham's bosom, if he knew there 
were anywhere any one suffering a hard and bitter lot because 
of his evil doing?" 43 

Can he cite an instance of one undoing the mischief 
and wrong gone forth from him? One may do some 
good, but can not undo the evil of the past. Consequently 
the saneness of the doctrine of pardon and forgiveness. 
If those in Abraham's bosom can not rest content while 
conscious any one is suffering a bitter lot because of their 
evil-doing, comparatively few rest content in Abraham's 
bosom. 

CONFESSES HIS THEORY IS INCOMPLETE. 

He is not satisfied with his moral view. He insists 
it must be included in any theory ; but he does not think 
it a sufficient theory. Well has Dr. Bushnell said : "It is 
one from the preaching of which little good can be ex- 
pected." He teaches a Father's love, but ends in legalism. 
He teaches grace, but ends in "an unchangeable system 
of law." He declares forgiveness, but ends with the indi- 
vidual undoing his wicked deeds. Any writer can do as 
he has done ; go outside the Scriptures, ignore its plainest 
teachings, and evolve a theory adapted to his undemon- 
strated doctrine of evolution. He does not interpret the 
Scriptures; he ignores them. He says we do not need 
any theory of the atonement. How can one preach the 



43 pp. 112, 113. 



64 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



Gospel without a theory of the atonement? The greatest 
preachers are doctrinal, theoretical, practical. It is a 
glorious theory that Christ died for our sins and rose for 
our justification, the just for the unjust, to bring us to 
God. Can any other theory produce such a glorious spir- 
itual harvest? Can one preach the Gospel and have no 
theory concerning the death of Jesus? If he would use 
his "moral reason" on the vast amount of the Scriptures 
he ignores or denies, and according to sound rules of in- 
terpretation meet them or disprove them, he would do 
the Church an honorable service ; but to dash through the 
doctrines which have made the Church he serves glorious, 
without reason, sound philosophy, or safe interpretation, 
can not be accepted by those who love the truth. No 
wonder he no longer cares for the word atonement; his 
system does not need it. I close with a few 

OBJECTIONS. 

I object to the teachings of undemonstrated hypoth- 
eses for the proven truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, 
which is the power of God unto salvation. 

I object to a necessitated moral world under an un- 
proven theory of development including evil as a part of 
the Divine will and plan. 

I object to sin as rooting itself in the animal psychic 
nature, and not in a nature fully capable from the begin- 
ning to obey the highest demands of the moral law. 

I object to ignoring the explicit statements of Christ 



THE ATONEMENT. 



65 



concerning His death and implying His fallibility con- 
cerning the true object of His mission. 

I object to the displacement of the sacrificial death of 
Christ with an atonement that, before He is through with 
it makes Him willing to drop the word altogether, though 
semingly unable to suggest a substitute for it. 

I object to ignoring the death of Jesus Christ as the 
procuring cause of our pardon, and to the ignoring the 
forgiveness of sins as taught by Jesus Himself. 

I object to the implication that the Scriptural state- 
ment of the fall is a myth, to which no credence is to be 
given, when no sound philosophy of the origin of sin can 
be produced while ignoring it. 

I object to the positive denial of forgiveness of sins 
when the Scriptures explicitly state they are forgiven. 

I object to the substitution of repentance for the atone- 
ment made by Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. 

I object to making literal a parable, contrary to all 
sound exegesis, to save an unscriptural Fatherhood of 
God. 

I object to rationalism unfounding faith in the Gospel 
of Jesus Christ through agents intrusted with instruction 
in religious truth. 

I object to teachings unscriptural and unmethodistic, 
coming from those who are as thoroughly obligated as 
myself to defend the doctrines of the Church intrusting 
them with a place among its teachers. 

I object to an army of teachers and preachers taught 
5 



65 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



to deny the distinctive teachings of Methodism and the 
Scriptures, continuing to influence the unwary who un- 
consciously believe the false against the true, and go forth 
throughout our vast inheritance tearing down the founda- 
tions upon which such a glorious superstructure is reared 
by hands rightly dividing the word of truth. 

I object to the exaltation of reason above faith. 

It would be well for these destroyers of faith to re- 
member that our fathers were as rational as they are, and 
that the fundamental truths they emphasized became theirs 
by the faith that is in Jesus, linking them with the apos- 
tolic days for power and fruitfulness, because they experi- 
enced the same things, finding the Scriptures concerning 
Jesus of Nazareth the faithful sayings. 

Sons of Wesley ! Let us listen to the pertinent words 
of our worthy leader under God : "I am not afraid that the 
people called Methodists should ever cease to exist either 
in Europe or America. But I am afraid, lest they should 
only exist as a dead sect, having the form of religion 
without the power. And this undoubtedly will be the case, 
unless they hold fast both the doctrine, spirit, and disci- 
pline with which they first set out." 44 "If ever Meth- 
odism is overthrown, it will not be by the crude meth- 
ods of the so-called holiness people, but by the hands 
of polished clergymen, who neither believe her doctrines 
nor practice her polity. These are the 'unreasonable men' 
from which it must purge itself or fall by its own weight.' 5 

44 Artninian Magazine, Vol. X, p. 100. 



"STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE.' 



By Professor Borden P. Bowne, LL. D., 

Boston University. 

"Have ye forgotten that there is a spirit in man, and that 
the inspiration of the Almighty gives him understanding." — Job 
xxxii, 8. 

'And last of all, as unto one born out of due time, He ap- 
peared unto me also." — i Cor. xv, 8. 

67 



"Along with the consciousness of the cosmos there occurs 
an intellectual enlightenment which alone would place the indi- 
vidual on a new plane of existence. ... To this is added a 
state of moral exaltation, an indescribable feeling of elevation, 
elation, and joyousness, and a quickening of the moral sense, 
which is fully as striking, and more important than is the en- 
hanced intellectual power. With these come what may be called 
a sense of immortality, a consciousness of eternal life, not a con- 
viction that he shall have this, but the consciousness that he has 
it already." — Cosmic Consciousness, 1901, p. 2. 

68 



CHAPTER II. 



This volume on "The Christian Life" appeared in a 
series of articles in Z ion's Herald from the pen of Pro- 
fessor Borden P. Bowne, IX. D. On such a vital theme 
one would expect great clearness from such a prominent 
teacher. He assumes he is examining the Christian life 
from a philosophical standpoint. His definitions are pure 
distortions. He denies distinct epochical experiences, 
being an evolutionist of the rationalistic school. He de- 
nies the existence of such classes as "saved and lost," 
"saints and sinners," but fails to establish the existence 
of his middle class, and frequently contradicts himself 
in his other booklets. I have heard him favor card-playing, 
theater-going, and dancing, as not detrimental to the spir- 
itual life he stands for. 

These articles appeared in book form later, and it was 
answered by the writer. While a second edition of the 
answer was being prepared a fire consumed the plates. 
This is the excuse for its insertion, with a few enlarge- 
ments, in these pages. 

PURPOSE IN WRITING. 
He indicates his purpose in writing as follows : 

"Some facts of experience will best open this series of papers, 
and will best indicate my purpose in writing. Not long ago a 
most worthy minister of my acquaintance, one who had been 

69 



70 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



preaching more than fifty years, and who was a model of saintly 
living, came to another minister, also a friend of mine, to talk 
about the witness of the Spirit. And his trouble was that he could 
not feel sure that he had ever had this witness. The expectation 
awakened by the phrase had never been satisfied. And the good 
man's heart was disturbed, and he sought counsel of his brother." 1 

This non-consciousness of a most worthy minister 
forms the basis of an arraignment of what Methodism 
has always taught as the witness of the Spirit. To confirm 
his views he cites the conduct of one of the "best and 
wisest" of men, who appointed himself class-leader to his 
own family, "in order to preserve them from the confusion 
and danger of popular religious speech until they should 
have acquired sufficient mental and spiritual maturity to 
grasp the truth for themselves." He assumes that the 
teaching of the Church for a century and a quarter has 
produced "an uncomfortable sense of artificiality and un- 
reality in all religious experience." He says : 

"I may say I have been listening intelligently to preaching 
for over thirty years. Of course I have heard a great many good 
sermons, but ii all that time I have heard very few sermons on 
conversion and the beginnings of the religious life, whether in 
our own Church or in others, which were not both confused 
and confusing. Theological expositions have been plentiful 
enough ; vague verbal exhortations have abounded ; but there has 
been a grievous lack of clear statement of what the seeking soul 
is to expect, or what is expected from it. Such facts suggest what 
every thoughtful and observant person must recognize, that there 
is need of revising popular religious phraseology, and also of 
clarifying popular conceptions concerning the religious life itself, 
and especially concerning its beginnings in conversion. This 
study is intended as a contribution to this desirable end." 2 



1 P. 5. 2 p. jr. 



STUDIBS IN THH CHRISTIAN LIPH. 71 



CONFOUNDING THE LANGUAGE OF THEOLOGY AND 
EXPERIENCE. 
He charges the source of confusion to "confounding 
the language of theology with the language of experi- 
ence." We think we can discover as we proceed that it 
is not the language of theology that fails to express ex- 
perience, but the inability of any language ; and that deep 
spiritual experience may be known to those whose lan- 
guage very crudely expresses it, and whose untrained 
imagination suggests ridiculous contrasts for want of bet- 
ter forms to express inner realities. Theology is as greatly 
at fault in expressing truth by a process of reasoning, as 
uncultured persons are to relate spiritual experience. 
Nothing is more certain than that intellectual giants have 
produced theologies concerning God and statements con- 
cerning the Christian life, that the consciousness of equally 
great men have disproved. However logical the mind, 
it can not frame a sound theology beyond the soul's ex- 
perience. Indeed, the opposite is true. Many a man's 
theology has been inferior to his experience. The theology 
of any age is largely the expression of the Christian ex- 
perience of that age. The supernatural revelation of truth 
by the Spirit compels the abandonment of former beliefs 
and theories. The Christian life is not a philosophy nor 
a theory; it is an experience. The highest intellectual 
equipment does not qualify a man to discern spiritual life, 
nor does it bestow ability to judge the experiences of 
others. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. It 
seems strange Professor Bowne can not distinguish be- 



72 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



tween the experience the soul seeks to express, and the 
intellectual perversity which distorts the expression by 
the use of undigested forms of speech. A clear spiritual 
discernment would have prevented him from shutting out 
the mass of Christian testimony because the phraseology 
can be criticised by intellectual but unsympathetic, unspir- 
itual minds. 

There are experiences in the Christian life which can 
not be imparted in words. The subjects of them did not 
receive them through a process of reasoning. To be un- 
derstood they must find those who have received the same 
experience. These experiences become authoritative in 
regulating their lives and speech for all the future. These 
experiences, with the certitude of knowledge, defy any 
process of reasoning; yea, become the standard by which 
all reasoning is tested. They are impervious to sophistry. 
The method by which these experiences are received give 
them authority. The activity of the will, intellect, imagi- 
nation, and senses has ceased almost entirely. Faith is 
active, at least receptive. Something transpires, produc- 
ing an experience of certainty, pleasure, and assurance. 
At once the soul calls upon all its powers to aid it in ex- 
pressing these facts of consciousness. Of nothing is it 
more conscious than its own inability to either fully or 
correctly convey the facts of experience. It is "unspeak- 
able and full of glory." It is this unspeakable experience 
which has made rich the spiritual life of the Church ; and 
it is this Professor Bowne seeks to deprive us of. The 
transformations sudden, glorious, and permanent follow- 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 73 



ing these experiences guarantee their genuineness. 
Changes in nature, life, conduct, and speech follow. Such 
has been our history in producing these experiences, that 
the religious world has recorded our success in their his- 
tories, and it is a shame to have one of our own teachers 
casting discredit upon that history, because his unmeth- 
odistic, unscriptural theory of religious beginnings can 
not explain it. The witnesses are as reliable as Professor 
Bowne. If his rationalistic consciousness is not satisfac- 
tory, he can find something that is. Others less intellec- 
tual than he is have done so. If these experiences con- 
sisted in emotions alone, there would be some plausibility 
in his attack. But the intellectual enlightenment, moral 
exaltation, ethical changes, purified sensibilities, and con- 
sciousness of spiritual power which follow can not be 
explained upon any other theory than the one the Church 
has maintained for centuries. 

How can one be a safe teacher of a religion the facts 
of which he positively ignores, and seeks to explain their 
phenomena on a purely materialistic basis? Unless he 
possess the thing himself he can not philosophize upon it. 
Professor Bowne denies that the Divine Being consciously 
meets the soul and communicates the truth. How, then, 
can he write upon that without which there is no Chris- 
tian life? 

Professor Bowne does not furnish in his revised 
phraseology the terms applicable to universal Christian 
experience, while he is removing from us every cardinal 
doctrine of Methodism. There is a marked absence of 



74 



METHODIST THBOLOGY. 



that phraseology which has stirred the greatest intellects 
in the Christian Church and taught the most marked spir- 
itual transformations. He removes some rubbish, but 
does not give us a statement covering the consciousness 
of all who are truly quickened into newness of life. We 
do not object to his correcting "popular religious phrase- 
ology, and also of clarifying popular conceptions concern- 
ing the religious life," but we do object to any endeavor 
to laugh our spiritual understanding out of countenance 
with tickling rhetoric. He is exceedingly unfortunate in 
the class he selects his illustrations from. He says : 

"When some brother of picturesque habit of speech says in 
a social meeting, 'The devil told me not to come here to night,' 
we are not to think that he had an infernal interview. The fact 
of experience is, that he was disinclined to come ; and this dis- 
inclination he attributes to the devil. But, however correct this 
may be as the hidden source of the temptation, it would be highly 
infelicitous to suppose anything of the sort occurred within the 
consciousness of the individual himself. The experience as he 
states it, is not the experience as lying within the range of con- 
sciousness, but rather the experience as theologized, or, more 
properly, diabolized by this infernal reference." 3 

Because of their ability to more correctly state the 
phenomenon which caused the remark, persons of a more 
correct phraseology would not say "The devil told me not 
to come here to-night," while the fact remains that evil 
thus personified does express a fact in consciousness. 
Something "transpired within the consciousness of the in- 
dividual himself" that he thus describes : He felt a disin- 
clination to come, but in what sense did he feel it, as a 



stud ins in tub CHRISTIAN LIPB. 75 



manifestation of personal dislike or an inducement of 
Satan himself or some evil spirit hindering him ? Is there 
nothing more in consciousness than a disinclination to 
good when one is tempted ? Are all concepts of an exist- 
ing personal tempter merely disinclination originating 
with the person ? and is the statement that we are tempted 
of the devil a mere diabolization of an inclination to evil 
in ourselves? May not one feel the presence of the 
tempter without an antecedent inclination to do wrong? 
It is a fact of experience that some one who communicates 
thought and must be a thinker, impinges upon one's self- 
hood and awakens such disinclination to do right, and such 
a person answers to the formula of a personal devil. To 
reason otherwise would dispense with the Scriptural ac- 
count of Christ's temptation in the wilderness. 

CHRIST'S TEMPTATION. 

Did it not lie within the range of Christ's conscious- 
ness that Satan personally appeared unto Him, or will he 
insist that the whole history was an inclination to evil in 
Christ "diabolized by this infernal reference ?" If Satan 
really appeared to Christ, and He was conscious of his 
presence, then there is a personal devil capable of com- 
municating with spirit nature. If he did not, and the 
clear implication of the writer is that he does not so ap- 
pear, then we have Christ possessed with inclinations to 
evil and the Scriptures improperly representing His states 
of being. It would not surprise one to read from this 
trenchant pen that the Scriptural account of Christ's temp- 



V 

76 MHTHODIST THEOLOGY. 



tation is the objectivity of subjective thought, and that 
Satan was neither present to the consciousness of Christ, 
nor in reality present at all. We do not accept Dante as 
our standard of phraseology, but we must reject this cor- 
rected phraseology of Professor Bowne as too rationalistic 
for Methodism or Scripture. We do not hold that every- 
thing attributed to the devil came from that source ; far 
otherwise ; but we are not prepared to say that we are de- 
pendent upon theologic statement for the idea of conscious 
Satanic impingement. Consciousness and history ante- 
date theology. That we are in ourselves a source of vari- 
ous inclinations to evil is a .matter of consciousness. It 
is this consciousness which relates us to the inclination 
and produces a sense of evil in us, and this may exist in- 
dependent of any Satanic agency ; but we as certainly find 
in consciousness that which has given Methodism a dis- 
tinct place in theology; namely, a state where no inclina- 
tion to evil exists, and while consciously pure our con- 
sciousness asserts a well-defined Satanic assault upon our 
motive and intentions to do the will of God. To one 
whose spiritual consciousness is less than conscious purity, 
it is almost impossible to distinguish between evil inclina- 
tions arising from subjective impurity and a direct assault 
from Satan. To one not delivered from evil inclinations 
the character of Christ's temptations is impossible of 
realization, whatever may be one's theory. Does the Pro- 
fessor insist that the inclination to evil can be a matter 
of consciousness, but the presence of Satan can not be? 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 77 



One might equally insist the presence of the Spirit can not 
be a matter of consciousness ; indeed, he says so. 

"A great many things are said about the work of God in the 
soul ; the operations of the Spirit, His presence with us — and all 
this may be true theologically, but it is not true psychologically. 
. . . It is an object of belief, not a fact of consciousness; an 
accepted doctrine, not a conscious datum." 4 

If one can not be conscious of the source and char- 
acter of temptation, and all temptation to evil is diabolized 
subjective states, then God's approbation may be consid- 
ered a self-imposed, pleasing state of consciousness. If 
one may not be conscious of the work of God in the soul 
and the operations of the Spirit and His presence with 
us ; if this is simply "an object of belief," for which there 
is no experimental proof, then we have no way to distin- 
guish between faith and the fact for which our faith 
reaches out. Presumption would be as helpful as experi- 
ence, as there is no such thing as an experience of the 
presence of God according to the Professor. He says : 

"No exegesis of the utterance, according to the recognized 
usage of secular speech, would ever reveal that this means only 
that the person feels an inclination to some evil deed, and ascribes 
it to the devil as its source." 5 

He would have us believe that when Luke, the 
learned physician, said, "Then entered Satan into 
Judas," he means only that Judas felt "an inclina- 
tion to some evil deed, and ascribed it to the devil 
as its source," and that this statement is a diabol- 



*p. 12. & p. 13. 



78 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



ization of an inclination to evil in Judas Iscariot. No 
doubt he had an inclination to yield to his inherent love 
of money, and under temptation it was intensified ; but 
surely, if Luke meant to convey the idea that his inclina- 
tion to evil was intensified he was capable of more dis- 
criminating phraseology than he used. Satanic possession 
is more than an inclination to evil ; it is the possession of 
the soul by a power that not only inclines it in a given 
direction, but it leaves the soul powerless to do otherwise, 
and he who is thus possessed is conscious of his bondage. 
When Jesus cast out demons they addressed Him, and 
obeyed the word of His mouth. By what process could 
inclinations to evil be made to speak? 

This method of reasoning practically denies all con- 
scious religious experience. Every uncritical reader of 
Romans viii, 16, at once accepts the idea of two witnesses, 
the "Spirit Himself," and "our spirit." The testimony of 
our own spirit is the testimony of our own consciousness 
to its sincerity, to the facts it claims to be true. Now 
comes the direct witness of the Holy Spirit, which enables 
one to cry, "Abba, Father !" in our affections. Is this the 
result of argument or reflection ? The theorist may think 
as he pleases; but those who have received the Spirit of 
God know it is instantly given. 

This doctrine of assurance is a fundamental one in 
Methodism. The Calvinists held to an assurance of eter- 
nal salvation. The Methodists hold to an assurance that 
we are now accepted, pardoned, and adopted into the 
family of God, and that this witness is neither given nor 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LITE. 79 



continued, except upon the condition of obedience to the 
known will of God. Without this consciousness of the 
presence of God we have nothing on which to rest for 
assurance that we have the life of God in us. "Whether 
we view religion from the human side or the Divine, as 
the surrender of the soul to God, or as the life of God 
in the soul, in either aspect it is of its very essence that the 
Infinite has ceased to be a far-off vision, and has become 
a present reality. "Oneness of mind and will with the 
Divine mind and will is not the future hope and aim of 
religion, but its very beginning and birth in the soul." 6 
This source of power is being denied by those who should 
teach it. The Spirit leads very largely by revealments 
and feelings. It is truth felt that moves men. Indeed, it 
is the feeling of His Presence which gives power. For 
one who has never been conscious that God was present 
with him, and denies that conscious presence to as sane, 
reasonable, logical, and competent witnesses, is a piece 
of intellectual arrogance well deserving a severe rebuke. 
Had Methodism denied the conscious presence of God 
within, as Professor Bowne does, there would have been 
nothing left for the Professor to teach. A sound philos- 
ophy of the Christian life must have an experience of that 
life for its basis. Professor Bowne is the one who is 
seeking to construct out of non-reality a Christian life 
agreeable to his reason, but not above it. Truth is felt in 
the heart, as well as perceived by the intellect. God is felt 
when present, not that any emotion reveals Him, He 

6 Varieties of Religious Experience, p. 452. 



8o METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



creates just such feelings as He wishes, but they are al- 
ways in harmony with the truth, or a revelation of more 
truth. Our most profound life, our deepest penetrations 
into truth, the solution of the greatest mysteries come 
along the line of our religious feelings. Of course, there 
is no religious emotion without a spiritual reason; but 
spiritual reasons may be Divinely bestowed, and be clearer 
than any intellectual process of which the mind is capable. 
There is a pride of intellect that will not allow many a 
genius to admit what has been frequently proven; viz., 
that an ignorant man may have states of spiritual con- 
sciousness by spiritual processes that no other person can 
possess who ignores the Divine method by which these 
states of consciousness exist. Methodism has always stood 
for a direct testimony from an inwrought consciousness 
to spiritual realities. Nor has she mocked her spiritual 
sons whose ignorance made crude their expressions of 
their spiritual consciousness. She framed a language that 
gave to the world a new theology, and in the strongest 
forms of speech wrote her own hymns from her inmost 
soul's experience. No wonder Dr. James Martineau 
wrote : "For myself I own that the literature to which I 
turn for the nurture and inspiration of faith, hope, and 
love is almost exclusively the product of orthodox ver- 
sions of the Christian religion. The hymns of the Wes- 
leys, the prayers of the Friends, the meditations of Law 
and Tauler, have a quickening and elevating power which 
I very rarely feel in the books on our Unitarian shelves. 
After the Scriptures, the Wesley Hymn Book appears to 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 81 



me the grandest instrument of popular religious culture 
that Christendom has ever produced." I venture to say 
if the Wesley Hymn Book was reduced to conform with 
Professor Bowne's booklets, "The Christian Life," "The 
Atonement," and "The Christian Revelation," so little of 
it would be left to quicken and elevate, that a leading 
Unitarian would not detect much difference, if any, from 
the books found on the Unitarian shelves. 

The relation of spiritual life to speech is such that no 
one dreams of any language conveying it. But, clear or 
otherwise, the fact can not be conceived through any lan- 
guage. It was their spiritual experiences which formed 
the basis of unity in the primitive Church and also in early 
Methodism. Their knowledge of God, which made them 
a positive aggressive power, was not the deductions of 
reason, but the infallible testimony of consciousness. That 
which they said was true had no foundation in any ante- 
cedent consciousness as a predicate for a logical process. 
It was direct revealment that made Paul testify, "Ye are 
not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit 
of God dwell in you." We fearlessly aver that where 
there is not this consciousness there is no Christianity. 

If Professor Bowne means that spiritual experience 
has a language distinct from the language of theology, 
which could be clearly understood by those who are not 
spiritual, if it was properly expressed, let him produce 
the langauge, and tell unspiritual persons of spiritual 
realities so they can understand them. The history of 
theology is, that whatever the intellectual strength of the 
6 



82 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



Church, a revelation of spiritual truth has changed the 
theological statement, unless that statement was founded 
upon a spiritual consciousness. The language of experi- 
ence, as far as language can be, may be the language of 
theology if the language of theology is founded upon a 
spiritual experience. 

There is another distinction in dealing with the Chris- 
tian life : the difference between states of consciousness 
the expression of self-activity, and states of consciousness 
the result of the activity of other selfs. Both are experi- 
ences having appropriate language to express them from 
widely different sources, and neither of them is the lan- 
guage of theology. What if one of the other selfs should 
be God speaking and communicating with us? 

WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 
Concerning the witness of the Spirit, Professor Bowne 

says : 

"My friend who was troubled about the witness of the Spirit 
had the root of the difficulty right here. The phrase led him to 
expect some sort of celestial manifestation, a testimony from 
without, and standing so clearly apart from the ordinary laws of 
mental movement as to be undeniably produced by the manifest 
God. In lack of any such experience, he doubted whether he 
had the witness of the Spirit. This class comprises the great 
mass of thoughtful young persons in the Churches. And for this 
class the religious teacher needs to bear in mind the distinction 
between consciousness and theology, in order to escape, misleading 
and dangerous confusion." 7 

The inference here is very plain ; viz., that one in doubt 
may already have the witness of the Spirit. It matters 



7 P. 16. 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 83 



not whether one is looking for "some sort of celestial 
manifestation" or no ; it is our contention that the witness 
of the Spirit is a matter of consciousness that ends all 
doubt as to itself. Methodism holds, and we believe the 
Scriptures clearly teach, that there is "a testimony from 
without, and standing so clearly apart from the ordinary 
laws of mental movement as to be undeniably produced 
by the manifest God," called the witness of the Spirit. 
It is corroborated by the most reliable witnesses of all 
classes, producing an experience which can not be ac- 
counted for by "the ordinary laws of mental movement." 
If Professor Bowne has had no such experience, his state- 
ment will weigh for much with those of his own class who 
doubt the reality of any such thing. We must not forget 
that his peers sustained a similar attitude and afterward 
received the experience, which caused them to change 
their theology and their testimony. Again he says : 

"No outside being appears within the disciple's consciousness 
and literally testifies to a celestial fact concerning his standing in 
the court of heaven. . . . The phrase itself, as used by Paul 
in the classical passage, Romans viii, 16, seems to grow out of 
the ancient custom of adoption." 

This interpretation dispenses with conscious fellow- 
ship. Heinrich Meyer, D. D., "the greatest living exe- 
gete," says on this passage : 

"That is, Himself, on His own part, the (received) Spirit 
testifies with our spirit; He unites His own testimony that we are 
children of God with the same testimony borne by our spirit, 
which (1 Cor. ii, n) is the seat of our self-consciousness. . . . 
Paul distinguished from the subjective self-consriousnessness : 



8 4 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



I am the child of God, the therewith accordant testimony of the 
objective Holy Spirit, thou art the child of God." 

He denies the legal interpretation placed on this pas- 
sage by Professor Bowne. The statement is a matter of 
consciousness not produced by "the ordinary laws of men- 
tal movement." Why did not Voltaire, Darwin, Huxley, 
Parker, and hosts of other great intellects see the glory 
of God in the face of Jesus Christ, and add their testimony 
to an equally as brilliant host of intellects that they too 
had discovered by "the ordinary laws of mental move- 
ment," that they were the children of God? The proof 
rests with Professor Bowne to show to the religious world 
that tens of thousands of the most reliable witnesses to 
the direct witness of the Spirit are mistaken. Neither 
voice without or words within are necessary to the con- 
sciousness of the presence of the Spirit. 

It is essential to a distinct Christian consciousness that 
the believer shall receive some preternatural manifestation 
that does not come under the laws of ordinary mental 
movement. Something distinct from any consciousness 
of those who seek to follow the highest ideals, and con- 
form to the requirements of righteousness in their own 
strength. Something distinct from any consciousness of 
the most cultured intellect, or the most perfectly endowed 
mind. Spiritually quickened beings, renewed in the spirit 
of their minds, feel His presence distinctly from the pres- 
ence of all other spirits. Because the Spirit does not 
speak of Himself, it is no proof that He does not make 
Himself known. 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN UPB. 85 



If Christ's presence in the person of the Spirit can not 
be as real as when He was in the flesh, and more helpful 
to us, then the Church has sustained harm by His absence, 
and the teaching of His visible reigning on the earth as 
essential to His final triumph of the world is reasonable. 

To have a perfect assurance, according to Professor 
Bowne, "the ordinary laws of mental movement" should 
act perfectly. Can he guarantee us any assurance what- 
ever? A subjective religion without any supernatural 
witness would greatly imperil the soul if left solely to 
"the ordinary laws of a mental movement," which are 
necessarily defective. Professor Bowne does not believe 
in assurance. He says : "The whereabouts of a develop- 
ing being is not so important as the direction of His move- 
ment." 8 The very thing Professor Bowne seeks to prove 
under the name of "emotional tendencies," is the very 
thing the witness of the Spirit is given to prevent; and 
without this witness there will necessarily be a great 
amount of undue emotion, or intellectual fanaticism, or 
both. If there is not a Divinely certified assurance, there 
must ever remain some doubt as to the truthfulness of the 
Word. Enoch had the witness that "he pleased God." 
God said to Noah, "Thee have I seen righteous before Me 
in this generation." Isaiah was told, "Thine iniquity is 
purged." 

Professor Bowne implies that certainty in Divine 
things is secured by "the ordinary laws of mental move- 
ment," without any "outside being" appearing "within 

8 The Atonement, p. 72. 



86 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



the disciples' consciousness." Never was a fanaticism 
more subtle or. fatal. Paul was not using a classic pas- 
sage when he said : "The things of God none knoweth, 
save the Spirit of God. But we received not the spirit of 
the world, but the Spirit which is of God ; that we might 
know the things that are freely given to us by God, which 
things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom 
teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth ; interpreting spir- 
itual things to spiritual men. Now the natural man re- 
ceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God ; for they are 
foolishness unto him ; and he can not know them because 
they are spiritually examined." Here is direct testimony 
and teaching by the Spirit where an "outside being" ap- 
pears within the believer's consciousness and testifies to 
celestial things. This conscious presence of the Holy 
Spirit was essential to Christ's ministry, and is essential 
to all Christian ministers; and if He can come and con- 
sciously abide, can not He consciously witness as an "out- 
side Being appearing within the disciples' consciousness" 
to His acceptance? If what Professor Bowne calls the 
witness of the Spirit according to "the ordinary laws of 
mental movement" has no outside being present in con- 
sciousness, how can he prove that any being outside the 
disciple himself is engaged in the work of assurance? 
All the acts of faith are personal and conscious; but the 
witness of the Spirit is more than the disciple's personal 
act, and unless there is an immediate and direct witness 
of the Holy Spirit, on what can the believer rest from the 
fear that his assurance is self-imparted? Paul shows in 



studibs in run CHRISTIAN ufb. 



87 



his twofold statement in Galatians iv, 4-6, and Romans 
viii, 15, 16, that the Spirit of Jesus is sent forth into our 
hearts, crying, "Abba, Father," because we are sons, and 
because of this witness we cry, Abba, Father. Does any 
one think that Paul is referring to "an ancient custom of 
adoption," and that "if Paul had not been familiar with 
Roman law there would have been no doctrine of adoption 
and no doctrine of the witness of the Spirit?" 9 

If Paul used the form of expression found in Roman 
law, he carefully guards the passage from the interpreta- 
tion Professor Bowne puts upon it, by showing that in- 
stead of a legal act of adoption, the child of God is assured 
by the Spirit of God Himself that he is His. An adopted 
child is not a begotten one, and could never call the one 
who adopts him "Father," only in a legal sense ; but the 
Spirit which begat Jesus Christ has begotten every Chris- 
tian believer, and by that act given him an actual sonship 
in the family of God ; and because we are thus sons God 
hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts 
crying, Abba, Father. 

Professor Bowne falls into the snare of others by con- 
founding the "witness" of the Spirit with the "fruits" of 
the Spirit. Neither reason, the Bible, one's faith, the testi- 
mony of the Church, sacerdotal services, nor anything else 
can impart the assurance that I am a child of God. Rea- 
son is fallible ; my interpretation of the Bible may be false ; 
my professed faith may be the sheerest presumption ; the 
Church may be in error; the ordinances may be unscrip- 

»p. 77. 



88 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



tural ; my philosophy of the Christian life may be un- 
philosophical. / can not say when I am a child of God. 

Paul does not say the Spirit creates thought and gives 
us ability to do right, and ''the sincere and continued at- 
tempt to be disciples of Christ results in the conviction 
that we are in the right way. that we are on the Lord's 
side and He is on our side.'' 10 He is emphasizing assur- 
ance, and says what millions of us know to be true, "The 
Spirit Himself," directly, distinctly, frequently beareth 
witness with our spirit. Xor can Professor Bowne pro- 
duce a single reason to prove that this can not be. In the 
analysis of his own experience he finds no such thing; 
therefore he thinks there is no such thing. There is noth- 
ing in the spirit-nature of man to prevent it. and surely 
there is nothing in the Spirit of God that makes it impos- 
sible. His theory accords with his statements concerning 
conscious Satanic agency, development, and evolution. 
Sinners who know nothing of theology attribute their con- 
viction to the Spirit of God, and when forgiven testify to 
the witness of the Spirit to their adoption. Paul was bold 
to claim such a witness. Anticipating such contradictions 
as the Professor's, he said: "I say the truth in Christ; 
I lie not; my conscience also bearing me witness in the 
Holy Ghost." On this matter Mr. Wesley said : 

"I can not but desire all those who are for swallowing up the 
testimony of the Spirit of God in the rational testimony of our 
own spirit to observe that in the text (Rom. viii, 16) the apostle 
is so far from speaking of the testimony of our own spirit only s 
that it maj- be questioned whether he speaks of it at all, whether 
he does not speak only of the testimony of God's Spirit. . . . 

i°p. 81. 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 89 



But I contend not ; seeing so many other texts, with the experi- 
ence of all real Christians, sufficiently evince that there is in every 
believer both the testimony of God's Spirit, and the testimony of 
his own, that he is a child of God." 

Such are our conditions in the Professor's processes of 
.development that we are always sinners ; that is, commit- 
ting sin. Now how can one constantly committing sin be 
at peace with God? But peace is one of the fruits of the 
Spirit. So, even indirectly, he makes no provision for 
any witness of the Spirit. The fruits are inseparable. We 
do not have some of them, and later on develop the others. 
It is to His own work the Holy Spirit witnesses. He 
makes us sons of God, which is a changed spiritual state, 
and then attests His own acts. The order of this witness 
also aids us. The Spirit is first sent forth into our hearts, 
crying, Abba, Father. Then on this assurance we cry, 
Abba, Father. The doctrine of the universal Fatherhood 
of God has beclouded this glorious doctrine, and intro- 
duces obstacles which will be treated in due time. 

Minds the peers of Professor Bowne, whose spiritual 
achievements have left a permanent fragrance in the world, 
testified to the conscious presence of Satan, and equally 
to the conscious presence of God. Divine revealment is 
not a mental process, though the mind conveys, accord- 
ing to its ability, what the Spirit reveals. 

Can the Church intelligently account for the conver- 
sion of Saul of Tarsus, without regarding "some sort of 
celestial manifestation a testimony from without, and 
standing clearly apart from the ordinary laws of mental 
movement?" If Professor Bowne is correct, Ananias 



go METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



should have said : Brother Saul, "the ordinary laws of 
mental movement" in me, developed into an impression 
of my relation to the process of your "becoming good," 
and "as we have to deal with beings in an order of devel- 
opment where the intellectual insight, the volitional energy 
and self-control, and the moral sensibility have to be de- 
veloped, and where development is never complete," I 
want to confer with you, and see if we can not locate your 
difficulty somewhere between "a world of growth from 
irresponsible ignorance and weakness," to "a world less 
a world in which moral classes exist than one in which 
moral classes are forming." You must be careful to avoid 
saying you are saved or lost, a saint or a sinner ; the whole 
"matter is complicated by the fact and form of human de- 
velopment." This is the revised phraseology of Professor 
Bowne, who objects to the statements of Luke in the Acts 
of the Apostles. Paul says : 

"Suddenly there shone from heaven a great light about me. 
And I fell to the ground and heard a Voice saying unto me, Saul, 
Saul, why persecutest thou Me? . . . And when I could not 
see for the glory of the light, . . . Ananias, a devout man 
according to the law . . . came unto me . . . and said : 
The God of our fathers hath appointed thee to know His will, 
and to see the Righteous One, and to hear His voice from His 
mouth." 

Would Professor Bowne call this "some sort of celes- 
tial manifestation, a testimony from without, and stand- 
ing so clearly apart from the ordinary laws of mental 
movement as to be undeniably produced by the manifest 
God?" Or does he deny the statement of this peerless 
apostle after years of time to calmly think it over. 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 91 



Here was something sudden, outside of Paul, of which 
Ananias was apprised in some way. He saw the Right- 
eous One, and afterward said, "Last of all, as unto one 
born out of due time, He appeared unto me also." He 
heard a voice saying, "Why persecuetest thou me?" Pro- 
fessor Bowne says all this is according to the ordinary 
laws of mental movement. Paul says otherwise. I think 
the masses will believe that Paul was competent to under- 
stand and analyze his own experience. Nor did his breth- 
ren question his testimony, much less deny it. This was 
all so contrary to anything Saul was thinking about, or 
anticipating that his mind could not have been moving in 
that direction. His condition of mind at the time, as far 
as we know it, can not account for what he declares oc- 
curred. 

Paul told the Church at Galatia that he saw Christ 
(i, 12), and received His Gospel from Him. Science can 
furnish no proof of such an experience, and probably this 
is why Professor Bowne denies it. 

It will avail nothing to say that emotions are taken 
for religious experiences. No doubt that is true in some 
cases ; and it is equally true that intellectual conceptions 
of truth have been taken for spiritual realities. But emo- 
tion alone can not explain any great character. Some have 
learned to distinguish between their emotions and what 
causes them. John Wesley says : 

"In the evening while I was reading prayers at Snowfield, I 
found such a light and strength as I never remember to have had 
before. ... I waked the next morning by the grace of God 
in the same spirit; and about eight, being with two or three 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



others that believed in Jesus, I felt such an awe and tender sense 
of the presence of God as greatly confirmed me therein, so that 
God was before me all the day long." 

Will Professor Bowne deny the reality of this "tender 
sense of the presence of God," and call it an illusion? or 
did Mr. Wesley theologize an ordinary working of the 
mind, and produce the statement that he "felt such an awe 
and tender sense of the presence of God" to harmonize 
with his teaching ? Was this awe and tender sense of the 
Divine Piesence, which produced such a permanent change 
in his thought and life, and laid the foundation for the 
greatest revival since Pentecost, nothing outside the ordi- 
nary laws of mental movement? Against the reflection 
upon the immanence and revealment of the Holy Spirit 
we cite the reader to a glorious cloud of witnesses who 
testify to the fact of a direct witness of the Spirit. Though 
they can not explain it, they dare not call it anything less 
than the presence of God. Is gazing on the face of God 
out of a pure heart an action divested of any "celestial 
manifestation ?" 

The statement that "the great masses of thoughtful 
young persons in the Churches" are in "dangerous con- 
fusion" concerning the witness of the Spirit is alarming 
indeed. Perhaps I have met as many of them as the Pro- 
fessor, and it is my observation that the unworldly, truly 
consecrated young people are neither confused nor con- 
fusing, but clearly testify to the fact of a conscious witness 
of the Spirit of God. 

In a series of articles in Zion's Herald by Professor 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 93 



Bowne, in the one on "Religious Experience" (January 
21, 1903), he says: "That we must have an experience in 
order to be Christians is a religious falsism." This ac- 
cords with his idea that nothing epochal transpires in be- 
coming a Christian. Sinners begin to live Christians, just 
begin obeying God and grow. Glorious Methodism, that ! 
No pardon for the past, no new birth. He says, not ex- 
perience, but obedience, is the test of discipleship. Does 
not love precede obedience? Is love to God natural to 
an unregenerate heart? Is not the love of God shed 
abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost given unto us? 
The first commandment to be obeyed is, "Thou shalt love 
the Lord thy God with all thy heart." According to Pro- 
fessor Bowne, all one need to do so is to will to do so. 
He says : 

"The sincere and continued attempt to be disciples of Christ 
results in the conviction that we are in the right way, . . . and 
as we view the Spirit as the immediate agent in the purification, 
sanctification, and upbuilding of the soul, we naturally come to 
regard our graces, or strength, or joy, our peace, our rest in God, 
as wrought in us by the Spirit, as the marks of His presence, as 
the witness He perpetually bears to us to our being children of 
God. And this is all the witness of the Spirit means in general." 11 

What the Spirit means in particular it is impossible 
to determine. The Spirit is regarded as the immediate 
agent in the purification, sanctification, and upbuilding of 
the soul. When wrought in us surely these become ex- 
periences. What about regeneration? Can one be puri- 
fied or sanctified, and not have "an experience?" If not, 



11 pp. 81, 82. 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



how may he know it? Professor Bowne does not believe 
that the Spirit purifies or sanctifies a soul in this life ; they 
are only in a process of becoming, and it is sophistry for 
him to use language so misleading, because he can not 
furnish language for his rationalistic conception of a 
Christian life. He should take the consequences of map- 
ping out a new way to a Christian life, and create a lan- 
guage for his ' new conception," if his theory has work- 
able value. 

NEITHER SAINTS NOR SINNERS. 
Again he says : 

"The second great source of confusion is the mistaking the 
hard and fast lines and antithesis of theological ethics for concrete 
facts among living men." . . . "We form such antithetical 
classes as saints and sinners, the saved and the unsaved ; and we 
fancy that living human beings admit of being classified in this 
hard and fast way. Of course these abstractions are necessary in 
theoretical discussion, and the opposed classes are mutually ex- 
clusive and contradictory ; nevertheless, concrete men, women, 
and children can not be divided off so easily. This is a world of 
growth from irresponsible ignorance and weakness toward re- 
sponsible power and insight ; it is a world of development from 
sub-moral and sub-rational beginnings toward moral and rational 
endings. And in such a world we must view great masses of men 
neither saved nor lost, but as developing toward these conditions. 
They are neither good nor bad, in a strictly moral sense, but are 
becoming good or bad. An academic ethics and an artificial 
theology find no place for them, yet they form the bulk of the 
human race. . . . The human world is less a world in which 
moral classes exist than one in which moral classes are forming." 12 

Professor Bowne may make such statements, but 

when he gets away from them he forgets and contradicts 

himself. He says: 



i" pp. 18-20. 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 95 



"If we had kept all the commandments, we should still be 
unprofitable servants. And when to this we add our record of 
unfaithfulness, waywardness, wickedness, we see that we are not 
only unprofitable servants, but sinners also, whose only hope must 
lie in the Divine grace." 13 "But when we hold up our lives 
against the background of infinite holiness and perfection, the 
matter is altogether different; and the language which comes 
spontaneously to our lips is the prayer of the publican, 'God, be 
merciful to me a sinner.' " 14 "But as God was revealing Himself 
as a God of grace, it seems to be quite in the order of things that 
He could condescend to sinners. Indeed, there was no other to 
deal with, as there is no other class still. The ancient saints were 
earthly enough, and so are the modern saints. That God re- 
ceiveth sinners is the essence of the Gospel. The fact that He 
bore with the imperfect saints of ancient times, is our great en- 
couragement to hope that He will bear with the imperfect saints 
of to day." 15 "It would be more exact to say that sinners, rather 
than sins, are forgiven." 16 

With one stroke of his pen he seeks to obliterate the 
only distinction spirit-nature is capable of ; namely, good 
and bad. Does he mean to say there is a class beside "the 
great masses of men" who are "saved or lost," a class 
whose moral quality is not "becoming good or bad," but 
is distinct? If so, he fails to state how these classes are 
formed and who belong to them, nor why they should not 
be called according to their moral state "saints and sin- 
ners." Is a willful transgressor ngainst moral law only 
becoming a sinner; if so, when does he become one? 
Where does the Professor get his middle distinction from, 
which he does not explain nor name, but applies to the 
great masses of men ? Will he tell us why the Scriptures 
are silent concerning this class, and why no one intrusted 



13 The Atonement, p. 125. 1 *Same, p. 147. 

15 .The Christian Revelation, pp. 98, 99. 10 The Atonement, p. nx. 



96 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



with Methodist theology has ever discovered it before? 
The Scriptures are very emphatic concerning- the classes 
he rejects as only in the process of becoming; namely, 
saints and sinners. Paul says : "The law was not made 
for the righteous man, but for the lawless and unruly, for 
the ungodly and sinners." Jesus said, "I came not to call 
the righteous, but sinners to repentance." If the large 
masses of the human world are only becoming sinners, 
then Jesus did not come to call them, nor was the law 
made for them. If sin is a willful transgression of the 
law, then one who willfully transgresses the law is a sin- 
ner. It would greatly relieve our minds if Professor 
Bowne would tell us how often one must sin before he be- 
comes a sinner. Or when he reaches sainthood. Accord- 
ing to this theory the liar, blasphemer, the thief, the adul- 
terer, the murderer, the self-righteous are only sinners 
in a "theoretical sense," to aid "theoretical discussion;" 
but it is only a "fancy" that they are sinners. He really 
includes all in those who are becoming saints or sinners. 
He means more than the masses of men. He includes 
"living human beings," consequently there are no saints 
and sinners, good and bad, saved and lost now. If he does 
not mean this, his statement is excedingly misleading. 
Against such a theory both the Scriptures and Methodism 
unequivocally stand. He teaches that there are no saved 
or lost, saints or sinners, good or bad, among living hu- 
man beings ; but teaches an ever-approximating "develop- 
ment where the intellectual insight, the volitional energy 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LITE. 97 



and self-control, and the moral sensibility have to be de- 
veloped, and where development is never complete." 

As Methodists we have been taught that deliberate, 
unholy choice makes us sinners. Professor Bowne says, 
Not so. Christ said, "Rejoice with Me, for I have found 
My sheep which was lost." Professor Bowne says he is 
neither lost nor found, but in a developing process of "be- 
coming." The same is. said of the prodigal son. Pro- 
fessor Bowne would say they were becoming lost, and 
were now hopefully in the process of becoming saved, and 
Jesus theologized these facts into a "crude expression," 
which needs a revised phraseology to get at the facts in 
the case. When convenient he clings to his term sinner 
in the concrete. He says : 

METHODIST EMOTIONALISM. 

"Our Methodist ancestors tended to test conversion by its 
emotional attendants. Other things being equal, these will vary 
with the measure of the break between the new life and the old. 
An outbreaking sinner, who has been living in violation of all the 
laws of God and man, could not begin the new life without a 
break with about all there was in his old life. In such a case the 
fountains of the great deep would be broken up within him, and 
there would be an intensity of feeling and a manifest new depar- 
ture, which would be lacking, or less obvious, in the case of a 
better man." 17 

Here his vocabulary fails again. He can not furnish 
the revised phraseology for his concrete masses. He de- 
sires to make a distinction between a man far on in the 
process of becoming a sinner, and one not so far along, 



7 



98 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



and to describe their emotions. He calls what seems to 
him the worst of the two "an outbreaking sinner," and 
the other, "a better man," and he is describing their be- 
coming good. Where did his outbreaking sinner come 
from, and when did the distance between the new life 
and the old end? His rule by which he gauges the feel- 
ings of an outbreaking sinner and the better man is purely 
fictitious. It has been my privilege to see tens of thou- 
sands pass through these experiences, and I have seen this 
rule violated thousands of times. The so-called better 
man (a rather doubtful distinction) has a capacity for 
intenser feeling far beyond the so-called outbreaking sin- 
ner; and when thoroughly seized with conviction is as fre- 
quently the subject of intense feeling. If his so-called bet- 
ter man is self-righteous, his sensibilities are almost in- 
finitely harder than the so-called outbreaking sinner, and 
less liable to have the fountains of the deep broken up; 
but when they are, it is usually with strong cries and 
tears. The Professor is certainly not adhering to experi- 
ences in these cases. 

FATHERHOOD OF GOD. 

One of the fundamental errors of Professor Bowne's 
writings is the doctrine of the universal Fatherhood of 
God, and the universal brotherhood of the race, to the 
exclusion of the Governmental idea. He says : 

"We are fast displacing the entire conception of God as a 
Governor by the conception of God as a Father; and the concep- 
tion of the Divine government is giving place to the conception 
of the Divine family. The deepest thought of God is not that of 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 99 



Ruler, but of Father, and the deepest thought of men is not that of 
subjects, but of children. . . . The training and development 
of souls, as the children of God, then, is God's essential purpose 
in the creation of men ; and we must understand our human life 
from this point of view. ... Of course in such a scheme 
our traditional categories of the saved and the unsaved can not 
be applied in any hard and fast manner, but must be limited to a 
relative significance. They have a value in abstract theory, and 
they may express a limit toward which men are tending, but they 
can not be vigorously applied to the rank and file of the race. As 
said before, men are not so much saved as they are becoming 
saved ; and men are not so much lost as becoming lost." 18 

Why should it be necessary in conceiving God as 
Father to displace Him upon whose shoulders the govern- 
ment rests? It is true He ignores the qualities of good 
and bad in the concrete ; but is it not true that good gov- 
ernment is essential to a good family? There is no gov- 
ernment if there is no Governor. Must we cease to think 
of law and its operations, because we consider the Admin- 
istrator our Father ? Governor and Father are but relative 
terms of a Being who is more than both, nor are they in 
conflict. It is not necessary that the conception of the 
first should be displaced by the conception of the second, 
and give a place to an unbiblical and un-Methodistic 
Fatherhood of God. 

Paul guarded his statement of the unity of the race 
from "one blood" against polytheism on the one hand, 
and rationalism on the other. When he quoted from the 
poets, saying, "For we are also His offspring," and "For 
in Him we live, and move, and have our being," he was 
not teaching that all mankind are the children of God, 

18 Pp. 38-40. 



L.of C. 



ioo METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



but that all have life in Him; and that instead of gold, 
silver, and stone representing the Godhead, they must look 
to their own self-consciousness ; to their spirit-nature, ■ 
which was made in the image of God. 

The natural unity of the race from "one blood," is re- 
jected by St. John as a sufficient basis for sonship with 
God. He emphasizes a distinct birth by the Spirit as 
essential to becoming the children of God. Something is 
necessary to "become the sons of God," showing that we 
are not so until this something comes to pass. Already 
men are born "of blood," yea, of "one blood," by the will 
of the flesh, by the will of man. The difficulty with us is 
not in the nature or heart of God. He would have the 
heart of a father if not a human being in the race should 
be saved. Sonship with God is not inevitable, because we 
discover that God is a Father. The Savior established the 
doctrine of a Trinity in unity. Man, unregenerate, has 
nothing in him which corresponds to that relation. He 
may be spirit (so is Satan), but he is not spiritual. He 
is sensual, devilish, carnal by nature. 

Jesus made this distinction clear when He said to the 
Jews, "Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of 
your father ye will do." "The tares are the children of 
the wicked one." To become a son of God one must be 
"born from above," "born of the Spirit," "born of God." 
Paul distinguishes between the two classes. "Ye are by 
nature the children of wrath," "Ye are all the children of 
God by faith in Christ Jesus." Professor Bowne fails to 
recognize that God has a government for the children of 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 101 



the household of faith, from which the unregenerate are 
excluded. He does not deal with sinners as a loving father 
deals with erring children. If all are the children of God, 
why the distinctions already mentioned, and what is the 
difference between "bastards" and "sons," for God does 
not deal with them both alike ? Children are not "aliens," 
"strangers," "foreigners," "enemies," "bastards." Are all 
mankind coequal heirs with Christ alike ? Death ends the 
relation of father and son, husband and wife, brother and 
sister. They cease to sustain such relations beyond death. 
This is equally true of spirits. When spiritual life is gone 
and the nature becomes dead by sin, it ceases to be a child 
of God. "He that is born of God doth not commit sin." 
"In this the children of God are manifest, and the children 
of the devil," "whoever doeth not righteousness is not of 
God." 

To know God through His Son Jesus Christ, and thus 
become a son, is God's way of revealing His Fatherhood. 
There are twenty-two references to God as Father in the 
three Synoptics. Of these, sixteen are found in the Ser- 
mon on the Mount. In not one instance does Jesus say 
that God is the Father of all men. He addressed His dis- 
ciples, and said, "Your Father." Let your light so shine 
before men that they may glorify your Father, not their 
Father. He loves and cares for lilies and birds, He loves 
and cares for the unjust ; but this is no proof that He is 
their Father. Jesus contrasted His disciples with sinners 
as sheep among wolves, and said, "Your Father that 
speaketh in you." He was surely addressing His disciples 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



when He said. "Your Father knows that ye have need of 
these things." He deliberately told some of the rest: "If 
God were your Father ye would love Me. Ye are of your 
father the devil." Jesus said peacemakers are "called the 
children of God." All men are not peacemakers. Those 
who love their enemies are called the children of God in 
Luke vi, 35. Jesus taught that God was the Father of 
those who compose His kingdom. Procreation is the 
essential idea of fatherhood. The theory that sonship con- 
sists in an ethical likeness, merely, is contrary to the Word 
of God and the experience of millions. A change of nature 
by a Divine re-creation is essential to sonship, and this 
produces the ethical likeness. Professor Bowne says : 

"All religious speech is based on metaphor, and must be taken, 
not for what it says, but for what it means." 

He does not like Paul's statement, "We are by nature 
the children of wrath consequently the above statement. 
He should have regarded this rule when he assailed the 
"brother of picturesque habit of speech." To avoid this 
statement he says that this term is fixed "by the forms 
of criminal law and criminal procedure," and wishes us 
to believe the statement is metaphorical. Perhaps he can 
explain to us why so profound a thinker as Paul allowed 
himself to adopt phraseology "determined by the forms of 
criminal procedure," when elsewhere he shows his famil- 
iarity with the phraseology Professor Bowne uses. If 
inspiration and revelation taught Paul the doctrine of the 
universal Fatherhood of God and the universal brother- 
hood of the race, thereby making all the children of God. 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LITE. 103 



why did he adopt phraseology determined by the forms of 
criminal law ? Why does every violator of known law feel 
an inner sense of guilt, that the phraseology of criminal 
law more correctly expresses than any other? Paul 
teaches that where the form of criminal law and criminal 
procedure does not exist, man's conscience accuses him, 
and no words more fittingly express that accusation than 
the phraseology of criminal law. To tell a guilty man that 
he is not "a child of wrath," that the little rebellions of 
childhood can not forfeit membership in the family; that 
"children can not rebel to that extent," is exceedingly 
dangerous and ultra Calvinistic. But he can not be satis- 
fied with his own theory. He says : 

"The love of God, like parental love, takes the will for the 
deed, bears with weakness and imperfection, avails itself of all 
the resources of discipline, and waits for development ; but if any- 
one regardeth iniquity in his heart, the wrath of God abideth on 
him ; and any doctrine to the contrary is a heresy." 19 

Does he wish us to believe this is metaphorical lan- 
guage? Then there are children of wrath, if he insist in 
a real wrath of God. But God's wrath is never mani- 
fested toward His children. The wrath of God is His 
righteous antagonism against unrighteousness. And what 
is unrighteousness but antagonism to moral law ? Wrath 
and punishment are inseparable. Violators of the law de- 
serve to be punished ; those who reject the Gospel of 
atonement and remission of sins prevent the remission of 
that deserved punishment, and increase the wrath of God 
in its manifestations toward them. 



19 The Atonement, p. 92. 



io4 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



Again he forgets about the sinners being cnly in a 
process of becoming, and says : 

"But we are sinners. Yes, but not outcasts. But we are 
rebels. No, we are prodigal sons." 20 

"On the human side the response is slow. As in the earthly 
family, there is a long period of irresponsiveness, ignorance, will- 
fulness, and even of rebellion." 21 

Now how can one have rebellion and not be a rebel? 
Ask a guilty man if he is only a prodigal son, and he will 
tell you he could not be a prodigal son until he first re- 
belled against the government of his father's house. Law 
must be violated to necessitate criminal law and criminal 
procedure, and as all willful violation of spiritual law is 
voluntary involving guilt, it must be criminal. This is 
the very thing which discriminates between the children 
of God and the children of the devil. The one obeys, the 
other rebels. John says, "The world knoweth not the 
children of God." Then those who compose "the world" 
are not the children of God. He teaches a process of evo- 
lution from the natural to the spiritual. It is immaterial 
to us what theory of evolution Professor Bowne holds. 
In dealing with the great mass of human beings God is 
not evolving the natural into the spiritual. He is dealing 
with the unnatural. If they were natural, they would be 
relatively harmonious. God is dealing with life "filled 
with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, ma- 
liciousness ; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity ; 
whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, insolent, haughty, 



20 P. 44. 21 The Atonement, p. 93. 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 105 



boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 
without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natu- 
ral affection, unmerciful, knowing the ordinance of God, 
that they which practice such things are worthy of death, 
not only do the same, but also consent with them that 
practice the same." 

If such persons are only "becoming" sinners, when will 
they become such? Throughout his booklets Professor 
Bowne does not give a hint as to how these unnatural per- 
sons are to become natural before they become spiritual. 
Jesus did not tell His hearers that God was working a 
process of development involving "the unfolding of the 
constitutional end of man, as well as his abstract spiritual 
capacities." Their constitutional powers and spiritual ca- 
pacities were in full play in self-destructive energies ; and 
He said to them : "Ye do the work of your father. . . . 
Why do ye not understand My speech? Ye are of your 
father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your 
will to do." 

Professor Bowne emphasizes the natural development 
of a child from innocence to ethical consciousness and 
spiritual life. He says : 

"But it is God's thought for men that they shall not always 
be borne along thus unconsciously, but shall become aware of 
God's presence and purpose in their lives, and shall reverently 
recognize the presence, and filially accept and co-operate with the 
purpose. They are to pass from the unconsciousness of nature 
and the ignorance of childhood to the conscious recognition and 
acceptance of the Divine will ; and then go on with God in deepen- 
ing sympathy and growing fellowship forever." 22 



22 p. 40. 



io6 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



Here he admits one may be aware of God's presence 
and reverently recognize the presence of God. This he 
elsewhere denies. He does not believe that God reveals 
Himself to the soul, so that it is conscious it is God's 
presence. But, why does he ignore the common sequence ? 
Who among the masses pass from childhood's "uncon- 
sciousness of nature" to become aware of God's presence 
in their lives ? The many pass into open rebellion and per- 
petrate the most atrocious crimes, and that frequently 
early in life. 

Jesus never called a Pharisee a prodigal son, and in 
no sense does the parable apply to intellectual self-right- 
eous people as far as the prodigal is concerned. They 
may be elder bothers, but they are not prodigal sons. 
Every class in the awful list recently quoted can be found 
among those who hold to the universal Fatherhood of 
God and the brotherhood of the race. When Jesus said, 
"Out of the heart of man proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, 
fornication, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, de- 
ceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolish- 
ness, — all these come from within and defile the man,'"' He 
was not dealing with "the willfulness of freedom . . . 
rather than any deliberate choice of evil." This Socratic 
method of resolving all vice into ignorance and all virtue 
into knowledge is baneful in the extreme. If such persons 
are the children of God they should be treated as such ; 
but unfortunately the ethics of such theorists forbid it. 
A few earnest souls, full of the rugged theology of Meth- 
odism, burning with love for souls, having limited intelli- 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 107 



gence and crude manners, but believing the distinctions 
Professor Bowne seeks to obliterate of, saved and lost, 
saints and sinners, have shown a more Scriptural spirit 
in seeking to rescue the worst classes of society from the 
power of Satan, and have demonstrated the correctness of 
their theology and wisdom of their methods by the multi- 
tudes who have been brought into spiritual life and useful- 
ness. If "by their fruits ye shall know them," they are 
accomplishing more than those who are seeking to obliter- 
ate such distinctions by insisting that every man is a child 
of God. Imagine Professor Bowne applying his theory 
to the high and low criminal classes of Boston. Sin is 
not ignorance nor untrained willfulness, neither is it an 
undisciplined judgment. It is not lack of light, but hatred 
of it. Nor can it be cured by intellectualism. Willfulness, 
ingratitude, and selfishness are not cured by intelligence. 
Some of the most intelligent and most cultured are the 
most harmful to society. 

PARABLE OF THE PRODIGAL SON. 

If sin is not "deliberate unholy choice," there is no 
reason why one should repent. Professor Bowne uses 
the parable of the prodigal son as the proof of his theory ; 
but it is not the doctrine that all men are the children of 
God that Jesus wishes to teach. He sought to overthrow 
the exclusiveness of the Scribes and Pharisees, and to 
show them that sinners are not excluded from the kingdom 
of God. If all men are the children of God, then all are 
in the kingdom of God, for the kingdom of God and the 



io8 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



family of God are one. Is it not strange that after Pro- 
fessor Bowne has excluded sinners from a class distinc- 
tion he would select a parable used by Christ to illustrate 
the receiving of this distinct class? "This man receiveth 
sinners" is the truth the parable is used to illustrate, and 
not that all men are prodigal sons. Christ is no more 
teaching that we are all sons, than that we are sheep or 
pieces of silver. This forced interpretation of a parable 
by ignoring the plainly declared doctrine to be illustrated 
is a very unreasonble method of exegesis. The literalism 
he reproves in others he adopts himself in his interpre- 
tation of the parable of the prodigal son. Creating a new 
unscriptural distinction, he says : 

"This conception of God as full of grace and compassion, as 
ready to forgive the penitent soul, to give it power to become the 
child of God in the spirit, is the central idea of the Gospel."" 3 
"So the .Heavenly Father bears with His children and seeks to 
bring them to a recognition of His presence and purpose in their 
lives, and to a filial acceptance of, and co-operation with, His 
purpose. They must be recovered from their willful and evil 
ways, from their distrust and alienation also, and given power 
to become the children of the Highest." 24 

This forced distinction is needed to help sustain his 
theory ; but it is superfluous unless there is such a being as 
a child of God not in the Spirit. The Scriptures say : "If 
any man hath not the Spirit of Christ he is none of His. 
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the 
sons of God." From which we must infer that those who 
have not the Spirit of God are not the children of God. 
Children of God without His Spirit ! Where are they ? 



23 P. 47. 24 The Atonement, p. 94. 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 109 



Who are they? Professor Bowne certainly had them in 
his mind when he wrote this. Won't he please gather a 
company of them, and let us see them, fellowship them, 
and talk over our experiences and our inheritance in Christ 
Jesus ? 

REPENTANCE. 

These are his definitions of repentance, stated and 
changed as suits his convenience. He says : 

"Men see things out of their relations. They misjudge values 
and invert their relative importance. They have their minds full 
of these misconceptions, and practical confusion and misdirection 
result. Hence the first condition of a new and better life is to 
repent ; that is, men must change their minds or their ways of 
thinking above things." 25 

"The condition of such forgiveness would be true repentance ; 
that is, a heartfelt repudiation and condemnation of the deed, 
and a purpose to rectify the wrong done as far as possible. With 
God and man alike, such repentance should remove personal dis- 
placence and restore the offender to harmonious relations of will 
with the one sinned against." 26 

"Furthermore, the sentimentalist conceives repentance very 
superficially. In fact, true repentance is so difficult and takes 
such deep hold on the moral nature that not without reason is 
repentance itself spoken of as the gift of God." 27 

In the first paragraph repentance is a change of mind 
or way of thinking. In the second it is a heartfelt repudi- 
ation and condemnation of the deed. In the third it is so 
difficult and has such a hold on the moral nature as to be 
essentially the gift of God. Now, had the Professor in- 
cluded the three in one definition and even more, he would 
only have defined repentance. To send out a book to the 
world with the first definition as repentance, and then to 



25 P. 52. 26 The Atonement, p. 81. 27 p. 87. 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



send out another including much more; and in each in- 
stance detracting from or adding thereto as his purpose 
could best be served, is a piece of manipulation unworthy 
a scholar. Repentance is not at one time a change of 
mind because of misjudged values, and another heartfelt 
repudiation and condemnation of evil deeds. It is not 
mere sorrow for sin, however thorough, but a change of 
affections toward sin. It implies a most thorough sense 
of guilt, a positive renunciation of all sin, and a longing 
for pardon. He says : "They must repent; that is, change 
their minds or their ways of thinking about things, if they 
would enter the kingdom of God." What a strange sen- 
tence ! Children of God outside the kingdom of God, and 
they must change their ways of thinking about things if 
they would enter the kingdom of God. What kingdom 
are they in before they repent? Perhaps the Professor 
will tell us. 

In the first definition there is nothing which calls for 
repentance. Seeing things out of their right relations, 
misjudging their values and inverting their relative im- 
portance, having the mind full of misconceptions, are all 
involuntary and under the law of necessity, and ought not 
to exclude any one from the kingdom of God. Nor will 
any time come in this life when these things do not exist. 
When discovered they cause regret, but not repentance. 
To give this definition alone for repentance is foolish. 
One may change his mind or ways of thinking about 
things several times without reaching right thinking, say 
nothing of genuine repentance. 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. m 



Professor Bowne seems to studiously avoid the convic- 
tion wrought by the Spirit of God that precedes all genu- 
ine repentance. This definition does not touch the core 
of true repentance. He ignores the real reason for repent- 
ance, and puts a list of inevitable infirmities in the place 
of moral evil. No man necessarily repents because his 
way of thinking condemns his conduct. Is a lie a mere 
misconception of truth, or a deliberate perversity of a 
clearly perceived truth ? Are there no fruits meet for re- 
pentance but to change one's way of thinking ? The mind 
is an instrument ; what changes it ? Does thought produce 
repentance? What changes one's thought? What act in 
the evolutionary process is responsible for this change? 
Is it sudden or gradual? Was it a mere change of 
thought, or a Divine revealment to him that he was a 
persecutor and a murderer, that made Saul of Tarsus call 
himself the chief of sinners ? Saul must ever have differ- 
ent thoughts concerning Christ after the experience on his 
way to Damascus, and yet he needs not repent and become 
obedient to the heavenly vision. Conviction produces a 
change in one's thinking about things; but one may be 
very deeply convicted and never repent. Sovereignly the 
Holy Spirit produces conviction ; but that very conviction 
disregarded may increase one's guilt and accelerate the 
downward movement, as thousands sadly know. 

No, repentance means the utter and unconditional 
abandonment of all wrong doing and the adjustment of the 
past as far as possible. Self-determinations to evil can 
not be ended by changing one's way of thinking. Guilt 



ii2 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



can not be removed by changing one's way of thinking, 
any more than regret can remove the scars made by small- 
pox. We are more than sorry for our past ; we are guilty. 
God is a Judge as well as a Father, and repentance implies 
a sorrow at heart. Guilt is a matter of the conscience and 
not of the intellect, and as long as it remains the door 
into the kingdom of God must remain closed. Repent- 
ance is a condition of mind and heart concerning the past ; 
relating only to those self-determinations to evil that 
incur personal guilt. Again I say, to send out a book on 
the Christian life, with only the definition found in the 
first paragraph, is misleading and dangerous. I have 
added the definitions found in his booklet on the Atone- 
ment to show that, when he desires, he can include far 
more than the above in his definition, so that the one 
given in his booklet on "The Christian Life" is a distor- 
tion. Again he says : 

"Without doubt the Holy Spirit must assist us in our efforts, 
the weak will must be strengthened, the dull conscience must be 
enlightened, the wayward affection must be fixed; and in all this 
we need the co-working of God." 28 

The sinner's difficulty is not a weak will, but a de- 
praved one, a perverse one. A dull conscience is not an 
unenlightened one, but a seared one, by constant rejection 
of the light. The wicked do not lose their sense of right 
and wrong; their very endeavor to hide their evil doings 
determines that it is not in ignorance of right they act, 
but they love darkness because their deeds are evil. 



28 P. 55- 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 113 



In Paul's account of the human heart found in Ro- 
mans he does not say that they were first "natural," "igno- 
rant," "full. of misconceptions," and were perverted by 
"the ignorance of men who have to feel their way," but 
he does say that "knowing God they glorified Him not as 
God, but became vain in their reasonings, and their sense- 
less hearts were darkened. Professing themselves to be 
wise, they became fools, . . . for they exchanged the 
truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the 
creature more than the Creator, . . . and refused to 
have God in their thoughts." Loving darkness, vain rea- 
soning, exchanging the truth of God for a lie, and refusing 
to have God in our knowledge is deliberate evil choice. 
A changed affection alone can meet this case. It was a 
changed affection which produced it. The will is no 
stronger when we love than when we hate. The con- 
science can not afford further light while one is disobeying 
known law. Ignorance can not produce guilt and condem- 
nation, and waywardness is a moral quality of the heart. 
He describes salvation thus : 

FORGIVENESS. 

"Forgiveness by the Heavenly Father is no more difficult 
than forgiveness by an earthly father ; and in both cases what is 
desired is the establishment of the filial spirit in the heart and 
will of the wayward child. And this is salvation in the ethical 
sense, and the only salvation with which we have any practical 
concern." 29 

This "establishment of the filial spirit" has been 

wrought in millions of Christians, and in some instances 

29 p. 57. 
8 



ii4 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 

very early in life. If one has salvation he is saved, and 

the distinction of "saved and lost" is not a fictitious one. 

Again he says : 

"This new conception of the fatherhood and the family con- 
tains all that was true in the old conception of governor and sub- 
ject; but it is deeper and more comprehensive, and hence truer, 
than the old. And in so far as the older view conflicts with this, 
it must be modified or set aside." 30 

God has prerogatives because of what He is, never 
vested in an earthly father. His Sovereignty is grounded 
in His creative goodness, and it is nonsense to talk of its 
being "displaced" unless God changes. He is able, 
worthy, and responsible for the government of everything 
that He has made. He can not cease to be Governor 
while He remains responsible. It is at the point where 
an earthly father's authority and prerogative cease that 
Divine sovereignty begins. 

The Professor thinks the idea is a borrowed one from 
"the political absolutism of the time ;" but he is mistaken. 
The political absolutism of the time was borrowed from 
the Divine Kingship, and the foolish belief that God be- 
stows such powers and prerogatives upon men. There 
can be only one absolute Sovereign. There is one, and 
His sovereignty can not end nor be displaced by an un- 
scriptural fatherhood. The Sovereign is Father ; the 
Father is Sovereign. He is the Sovereign of the universe; 
but He is the Father only of those who are His sons by 
nature, spirit, and adoption. We rightfully, constitution- 
ally repel the idea of human sovereignty. Our Sovereign 

so p. 37 . 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 115 



is the one Ideal, possesses all power; the supreme moral 
character ; eternal goodness ; eternal love ; unselfishly de- 
voted to all His subjects ; is not limited by the fact of His 
Fatherhood, and is as much King as Father, and more 
than both. Butler in his Analogy says : "Indeed, the 
miracles and prophecies recorded in Scripture were in- 
tended to prove a particular dispensation of Providence — 
the redemption of the world by the Messiah ; but this does 
not hinder but that they also may prove God's general 
providence over the world as our Moral Governor and 
Judge. And they evidently do prove it, because this char- 
acter of the Author of Nature is necessarily connected 
with and implied in that particular revealed dispensation 
of things." While Fatherhood meets one at the threshold 
of the kingdom of God, and the first lispings of childhood 
is "Abba, Father," as one increases in the knowledge and 
love of God he is increasingly conscious of the majesty 
of God our King. The Scriptures set forth the sinner as 
an offender against the Divine Sovereign, and not against 
his Heavenly Father. The conscience which represents 
the Divine Sovereign in man in his relation to law never 
talks of fatherhood. Conscience can not be accounted for 
by fatherhood. As Sovereign God imposes law, as Father 
He loves His children, as God He loves all. Professor 
Fairbairn says : "A fatherhood without sovereignty may 
beget persons, but can never form characters, or build the 
characters formed into a happy family or a contented and 
ordered state. The two, Fatherhood and Sovereignty, 
must then live together, and be incorporated into a living 



n6 METHODIST THEOLOGY . 



and effective unity, if we are to have a government of ideal 
perfection such as becomes God and is suitable to a uni- 
verse full of realities and infinite possibilities of good and 
evil." 

Again, in place of any direct witness of the Spirit, we 
have the following : 

"We must make clear to the inquirer that he is to consider 
himself no longer his own, but as being in all things the disciple 
of the Lord Jesus and the servant of God." 31 

This statement moves with the rhythm of true poetry. 
It is here the real battle begins, and where thousands of 
professed Christians are self-deceived. We insist upon 
the Professor adhering to the subjective conditions in- 
volved. What is our experience? How can one "con- 
sider himself no longer his own," without a consciousness 
of a complete abandonment of himself to another? The 
experience of the Church in all ages has been that unnatu- 
ral conditions exist in us which set up fearful antagonisms 
to the utter surrender of self-proprietorship, and no 
amount of considering one's self otherwise can change it. 
This state of things antedates our volitionating or our 
thinking. The most crucifying process in Christian ex- 
perience is necessary here. The spirit of the world is in 
us, and we must be crucified to it. Selfishness, rooted and 
grounded, and largely developed by personal activity, is 
in us, and an utter abandonment to a life of faith in an- 
other, so as to truly become "in all things the disciples of 



31 P. 90. 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 117 



the Lord Jesus and the servant of God," requires a distinct 
work of the Spirit of God. 

It has been the glory of Methodism in the past that it 
has furnished thousands of glad witnesses to this complete 
surrender. Indeed, many more than have given any prac- 
tical proof of doing so, who advocate the "new concep- 
tion." It is worth our thought to notice that where the 
new conception is most earnestly advocated, Methodism is 
most thoroughly losing its power to induce men to make 
this unselfish surrender to the Lord Jesus. The testimony 
of the Church has always been that, though this consider- 
ing one's self no longer his own in reality has cost many a 
pang and a real crucifixion within, the glorious life of love 
that succeeds it produces unspeakable joy. If, as Pro- 
fessor Bowne thinks, that joy has been largely "subjective 
conditions framed from emotional states," he may be as- 
sured that some can distinguish between such emotions 
and those arising from subjective spiritual states that are 
inwrought by the Spirit, and abide when the emotions sub- 
side. 

The icy touch of his thought made his pen say : "Love 
abides in the will rather than the feeling." 32 

The will can not awaken affection whenever it so de- 
termines. There is a love that results from a new nature. 
It is shed abroad in our affectional nature by the Holy 
Spirit. It is not willed into being or activity, it is shed 
abroad by the Holy Spirit. Hence, the more of the Spirit 



32 p. 92. 



n8 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



the more love, and to be "filled with the Spirit" is to be 
filled with love. 

He can not keep from contradicting himself. He says : 

"That one should call himself the child of God while working 
the works of the devil is not to be thought of for one moment." 33 

Pray tell us, Professor, what He is during this period ? 
Can one be a child of God and work the works of the 
devil? What are those works of the devil that forfeit 
being a child of God? He says, "Children can not rebel 
to that extent." He now says he can not call himself 
the child of God while working the works of the devil. 
This tacit admission that they can rebel to some extent is 
a contradiction of his statement. "But we are rebels. 
No! we are prodigal sons." Now, if "children can not 
rebel to that extent ;" namely, to forfeit membership in the 
family, why not continue to call themselves children of 
God while they are working the works of the devil? 
Surely error complicates one's reasoning and leads to the 
contradictions found in his booklets. 

Perhaps his greatest blunder is his caricature of 
"David." He uses the following quotation from a re- 
ligious paper : 

"Then the Lord God said to me : 'David, are you willing to 
consecrate yourself?' 'Yes, Lord. Everything, everything.' And 
he brought one thing after another in this way. 'Are you willing 
to leave your situation if I ask you ?' I was quite willing. 'Would 
you go to Africa to be eaten by cannibals?' I was willing to do 
even that. Then the Lord said : 'Would you leave your wife at 
home and go anywhere ?' O, I was n't willing. It was very hard 

33 P. 98. 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 119 



to leave my dear wife behind and go anywhere. Then a fight 
went on in my heart. I did n't want to yield that ; but the Lord 
brought Christ very prominently before me, and He said that He 
must be first, and my wife in the second place. Then He brought 
before me the responsibility of heathen souls, Mohammedans, 
Buddhists, and others. 'David, are you willing to leave all to 
win souls?' Then it came to me: 'What am I to do? The Lord 
will take care of my wife,' and I said, '0 Lord, I am willing to 
leave my wife behind and go anywhere.' Then the struggle 
ceased. 'Would you like to become as the dust of Colombo, for 
My sake?' Yes, I was willing. The Lord searched me through 
and through." 

Concerning this, Professor Bowne says : 

"All this is purely fictitious. The Lord said none of these 
things ; they were suggested solely by the author's own misguided 
mind. The Lord often calls us to sacrifice and renunciation, but 
never in any such fashion as this." 34 

When we remember the Professor's own statement, 
that "All religious speech is based on metaphor and must 
be taken, not for what it says, but for what it means," 
when we remember the thousands of testimonies to sim- 
ilar struggles in yielding up one's self to God, of the illus- 
trious characters in Christendom, this statement is a mar- 
vel of clearness. The depth of surrender carries the man- 
ner of expression along with it. If, as Professor Bowne 
says, "The attitude of the will, then, is the central thing 
in the Christian life" (which is not conceded), this case 
has a peculiar beauty in it, and he assumes a knowledge 
of Divine procedure that is almost blasphemous, in calling 
all this peculiar testing "purely fictitious." It is a most 
convincing stamp of his ignorance of Scriptural consecra- 
tion. 



34 Pp. IOI, 102. 



i2o METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



Bishop William Taylor did just this very thing, leav- 
ing wife and children for years, and proved the divine 
purpose in his course. For shame ! that the Church has 
one teaching her preachers who holds such views concern- 
ing the leadings of the Spirit. Does Professor Bowne 
mean to say that God has never called any man to leave 
home and wife for years and to go to places of danger and 
hardship; yea, even to death for His sake; and that all 
who so declare are deluded, and the impressions of one's 
own misguided mind? If so, he cares little for the cloud 
of witnesses of the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, of whom 
the world was not worthy. Nor can a worldly philosophy 
do better with them than call them "fictitious characters 
illustrating some truth." Continuing in the same strain, 
he says : 

"We must resolutely defend the inquirer from all this un- 
wholesome casuistry concerning cross-bearing, and testifying, 
and fictitious self-crucifixions, and imaginary duties and 
trumped-up sacrifices." 35 

The utter absence of cross-bearing, sacrifices, self- 
crucifixions, testifying, etc., in this booklet of Professor 
Bowne settles the attitude of his mind toward these things. 
According to him they are "trumped-up." He ignores 
genuine contrition for sin, he reduces repentance to one 
changing his mind about things, conversion is purely vo- 
litional, the witness of the Spirit is a sense of doing right, 
while self-crucifixions, cross-bearing, and testimony are 
unwholesome casuistry. He says: 

"We are not called upon to have experiences or witnesses or 
manifestations of any sort, but to be followers of Jesus." 36 

35 P. 106. 36 P. 84. 



STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN LIPH. 121 



Of course, Professor Bowne insists upon the private 
interpretation of the will of God in his own case, and this 
must be granted to him. This establishes a vital point; 
namely, that there is a will of God for the individual, "a 
private will, a will which no one else knows about, which 
no one else can know about," and which no one else can 
fulfill. Of course, this will not conflict with the will of 
God concerning any other individual. I can not be judged 
by my ethics only where I violate clearly revealed law ; 
but there is a spiritual life which antedates conduct, and 
that life has experiences to be felt and related. It is by 
comparing these spiritual things with spiritual, that the 
greatest spiritual progress is made. This is the only rea- 
sonable way to account for the spiritual progress of the 
first century of Methodism ; and, ignoring these spiritual 
experiences by questioning their validity, has cost Meth- 
odism much spiritual life. These experiences can only be 
made known by witnessing to them, and others with the 
same experiences will fellowship us. 

After all, Professor Bozvne does not answer the inquiry 
of the aged minister. It avails nothing to deny what 
others profess to have experienced. He has not disproved 
the testimony of millions, and ought to be ashamed of his 
assault upon the testimonies of his peers, because of his 
own non-consciousness sequestered behind the intellectual 
difficulties of an aged minister. 

Much more could be said ; but we must close. His 
evolution can not admit of something distinctively new 
that constitutes one a Christian, a new life, as the basis of 



122 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



the cnanges he suggests, which otherwise was impossible. 
If there is not a new life (not new conduct merely), re- 
generation is not what the Church has witnessed to in the 
past. A new life ends any antecedent evolution. Pro- 
fessor Bowne teaches a life of nature evolved. Jesus 
teaches a new life imparted, against which the life of na- 
ture originally imparted expresses intense antagonism — ■ 
this is fact, the central fact of Christianity which distin- 
guishes it from every other religion and denies Professor 
Bowne's "Studies in the Christian Life." Professor 
Bowne makes nature evolve spirituality ; by the aid of the 
Spirit, Jesus implants a spiritual life, and one instantly 
becomes a new creature. Jesus says the Person who cre- 
ates this new life is the Holy Spirit. Only life can gen- 
erate life. Paul said, " Christ liveth in me." Not striving 
to keep certain rules, but to walk after a conscious, in- 
dwelt Spirit. We do not get life by believing a law, or 
a doctrine, or by conduct, but by contact with a person. 
The Christian life is not a series of ideas through which 
we come to believe God is our Father. It is an imparted 
life producing experiences expressed in certain terms, sub- 
ject to change as consciousness enlarges its scope of the 
transformed selfhood. 

DENIES EVERYTHING DISTINCTIVELY METH- 
ODISTIC. 

Everything distinctively Mehodistic is negatived or 
denied in these pages. Sin, repentance, regeneration, the 
witness of the Spirit, testimony to conscious spiritual ex- 



STUD IBS IN THE CHRISTIAN LITE. 123 



periences, etc. All distinctions go down before this "new 
conception." Wesley, Clarke, Watson, Fletcher, Pope, 
Miley, and all others who have taught us in the past go 
for naught, and clouded statements of an undefined theory 
take their place. Professor Bowne makes the most bold 
and almost blasphemous assumptions, and arrogates to 
himself the ability to grasp the scope of all human con- 
sciousness in connection with spiritual experience. What 
he has not himself experienced is mere theology to him. 

Blessed Methodism of the fathers, speak to us once 
more in the full assurance of faith, and drive away our 
overhanging doubts. Drive the cobwebs of German ra- 
tionalism and human philosophy from the roof of the dome 
that once let in so much light, and as we again see the 
glory of God and feel His presence, dispel our doubts as 
we testify, singing, 

"What we have felt and seen with confidence we tell, 
And publish to the sons of men the signs infallible." 



"SIN AND HOLINESS ; OR, WHAT IT IS TO BE 
HOLY." 



By Rev. D. W. C. Huntington, D. D. 

"It is more flattering to the human mind to be accounted a 
judge, than to be reduced to the rank of a scholar; to be placed 
in a condition to summons Divine wisdom to its bar, and oblige 
it to give an account of the reasons of its decisions, than to re- 
ceive them upon authority ; but this is the safe because the humble 
path : and I greatly mistake, if it be not the true way to high 
illumination in the things of God. It is to the prayerful, patient 
study of Divine truth by its own light, that its harmonies, and 
connections, and beauties most reveal themselves." — Richard 
Watson. 

125 



''It is one of the mercies of God that erroneous constructions 
of His Word are necessarily so obscure that the popular mind 
can not be extensively reached by them." — Rev. Asbury Lowrey, 
D. D., "Possibilities of Grace," p. 2"jg. 

"It is a wholesome thing to remember that the men who 
elaborated our theologies were at least as rational as their critics, 
and that we owe it to historical truth to look at their beliefs with 
their eyes."— A. M. Fairbairn, M. A., D. D., LL. D., "The Phi- 
losophy of the Christian Religion" p. 13. 

126 



CHAPTER III. 



Dr. D. W. C. Huntington has written a book en- 
titled "Sin and Holiness ; or, What It Is to be Holy." He 
gives as his reason for writing it that "the views presented 
are greatly needed at the present time in our Churches." 

HIS EXPERIENCE. 

He says : 

"I was led at two different periods of my Christian life to 
believe that I had 'experienced the blessing of sanctification,' 
understanding by that term, as I did, the removal or destruction 
of what I was instructed to regard as 'inbred sin.' That I did 
realize at each of these seasons a gracious uplift in spiritual 
life I shall never doubt. Christ was revealed to me and in me 
as He had not been revealed before. For weeks following not 
a movement of my nature disturbed the deep calm of my spirit. 
I could say with another, 'I sought God in everything, and found 
Him everywhere.' That I experienced just what I thought I did, 
I do not now believe." 

"Following upon each of these times of refreshing my emo- 
tional fervor subsided. . . . With that subsidence of religious 
feeling there came to me the consciousness that what I had 
thought exterminated or destroyed, still existed in my nature. 
It seemed more easily and steadily controlled, but was ready to 
respond to objective temptation. The degree of my disappoint- 
ment I can not describe. The thought that I had been misled 
or self-deceived in a matter of such sacred importance was well- 
nigh overwhelming. The experience had come to me in a rapture 
of heavenly love. It came in response to my prayers and un- 
utterable longings of heart. That it should prove unreal, or not 
what I had in deepest sincerity sought, seemed inexplicable and 
confounding." 1 



1 Pp- 4- 5. 



127 



i28 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



A SAD PICTURE. 

This is, indeed, a picure calculated to arouse the deep- 
est sympathy. The writer says he did not receive what he 
sought, prayed for, and expected. He received a great 
spiritual uplift. These are the states of his consciousness. 
He seeks to explain them and to evolve a theory of sin 
and holiness in harmony with them. "Others were in sim- 
ilar experiences." 

Others, equally reliable, as thinkers and writers, and 
as competent to define their states of consciousness, de- 
clare that they found what they sought, prayed for, and 
expected; and, after as long a period as Dr. Huntington 
has tested his experiences, are satisfied that they are genu- 
ine, and that they experienced "just what they thought 
they did:" 

After the subsidence of his "emotional fervor" there 
came to him the consciousness that what he had thought 
exterminated or destroyed still existed in his nature; and 
his disappointment was indescribable. Others, who have 
had the same tides of emotional fervor in connection with 
the experience of entire sanctification, after the subsidence 
of their emotional fervor, have experienced a sense of 
cleanness and inward purity, besides the special spiritual 
uplift accompanying the experience of sanctification. 

Dr. Huntington may evolve a theory including his 
own experience and those who have a similar one. But, 
to make his experience a standard, and his theory include 
this and nothing more, to the exclusion of all other experi- 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



129 



ences, is a piece of reasoning which can not stand the test 
for one moment. 

The clear experiences of others must be accounted for. 
The witnesses are as competent and reliable as he is, and 
they include more in their experience of holiness than he 
does. All he defines holiness to be they claim to have 
obtained in regeneration. One is impressed with his atti- 
tude toward spirit-nature, and his almost complete silence 
concerning the affectional life. An undue prominence is 
given to the sensibilities in their involuntariness. Being 
and volition are treated with hardly any distinction. His 
psychology pays little regard to the Pauline distinction of 
body, soul, and spirit, as we shall see later. 

WHAT SIN IS. 
He defines sin as follows : 

"Whatever is our sin must include action or consent on our 
part." 2 "The inevitable effects of the sin of the first human pair 
can not properly be termed sin." "We can not predicate sin 
of an unavoidable effect." "The inevitable effects of the first 
human sin are thus caused ; therefore they can not be sin." 3 "Sin 
consists in a wrong state of the will relative to known obligation." 4 

"Sin is never impersonal; it does not exist in the abstract. 
To conceive of sin as something apart from ourselves, is to allow 
ourselves to be seriously misled. Sin is the voluntary state of 
an intelligent being. Your sin is yourself occupying an un- 
submissive attitude towards the will of God. It is not something 
which exists along with you but is no part of you. It is not 
something which God can hate and punish, without affecting you. 
In a most real sense, it is you. It is not capable of being removed 
from you as a surgeon removes a tumor. It is a voluntary state,, 
to be renounced and abandoned forever." 

2 p. 12. 3 p. 13 . 4 p. 20. 



9 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



"Strictly speaking, sin admits of no plural number. Men 
often speak of their sins as if they could be counted. They think 
themselves guilty of few ; others of many." 5 

"What impenitent men are accustomed to call sins, are but 
manifestations of one protracted sin — a will at variance with the 
will of God. It is not occasionally only that they commit sin. 
. . . They sin all the time until they submit themselves to 
God." 6 "Sin itself is not an inheritance, . . . it is the same 
in all, the soul's own, self-originated rebellion against God." 7 

CHARGES WESLEY FALSELY. 

"During tl e years of controversy in the Methodist societies 
over the subject of sanctification, Wesley again and again de- 
fended his doctrine of salvation from all sin against the attacks 
of his opponents, by showing that they included in their notions 
of sin what he did not ; that he meant by sin a voluntary trans- 
gression of known law. To this definition he uniformly ad- 
hered." 8 

"Can that be our sin which is upon us by unavoidable in- 
heritance?" 1 ' If the fact that something is the effect of sin makes 
that something also sin, then all the effects of sin are themselves 
sin." 10 

"If some of the effects of Adamic sin are for that reason 
sin, then all the effects of ancestral sin must, for that same reason, 
be also sin. Why not? They are all the same in their relations 
to parental sin ; they are the effects of sin. They all sustain the 
same relation to ourselves ; they are inherited. To be consistent, 
therefore, this theory must include in its inbred sin all mental 
defects which have come upon us as the result of — the sin of 
others — a treacherous memory, a misleading imagination, and 
all forms whatsoever of infirmity and impotency of mind." 11 

"But where in the Bible do we find the doctrine of sin with- 
out guilt?" 12 "The theory of 'inbred sin' before us, involves the 
absurdity of affirming the existence of sin where there is no sin- 
ner. It maintains that 'inbred sin' exists in infant children, and 
yet it is not claimed that these children are sinners." 13 "Where in 
the Bible do we find this sin in the abstract? Where is this sin 



5 P. 27. 6 p. 28. 7 P. 29. 8P. 49. 9P. 50. 10 P. 58. 

" P. 59. 12 p, 6l, 13 P. 63. 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



existent and possessed, but which does not imply a sinner?" 
"When sin is affirmed in the Bible, it is in the concrete. It is 
joined with a sinner; it is the act or state of a sinner." 14 "The 
theory of both active and passive sin is not Wesleyan." 15 "There 
is sin in believers whenever believers sin." 18 "The Scriptural 
authority is not at hand for accepting the doctrine of a second 
kind of sin remaining in believers — a passive sin existence, a sin 
without a sinner. We must think that sin is the same in nature 
in all beings. Sin in believers must be the sin of believers. It is 
that for which they are responsible, or it can not be their sin ; 
and if it is sin in them, it is just like sin in others." 17 "The fact 
that all sin is voluntary does not prove that all sin is deliberate 
and premeditated. It may be voluntary, and yet be a sudden 
departure of the will from its attitude of unqualified obedience 
under the power of temptation. In the believer this will be the 
case. It may be a momentary yielding, followed by a quick return 
to Christ in penitence and faith. In believers this will very surely 
be the case. For all this, it is not less voluntary transgression, 
and still sin in believers is when believers sin." 18 

"By committing sin he (John) does not refer to the sinful 
wavering of weak believers, but to a state of heart which allows 
and justifies the practice of sin, and yet assumes the Christian 
name." 19 "It recognizes but one kind of sin actual or possible — 
voluntary transgression of known law." 20 "Sin is voluntary trans- 
gression of known law. This is not only a proper definition of 
some sin, but it is true of all sin. In this respect there are no 
two kinds of sin." 21 

There can be no question concerning Dr. Huntington's 
definition of sin. He denies "inbred sin," and makes all 
sin to consist of "voluntary transgression of known law." 
His whole argument is based upon this definition. With 
him nothing else is sin. He denies that Mr. Wesley taught 
anything else, and that inward sin with him meant a 
voluntary transgression of known law ; but for want of a 

"P. 64. 15 P. 8l. 16 p. 87. "p. is p. 90. 19 p. 92. 

20 P. 160. - 21 P. 277. 



(! ■ 



132 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 

true mental philosophy he wrote about inward and out- 
ward sin, meaning "a voluntary transgression of known 
law." 

HIS STATEMENT PROVED FALSE. 

We will now quote from Mr. Wesley to disprove this 
statement, and later, when we come to holiness and sancti- 
fication, refer to this matter again. Evidently Dr. Hunt- 
ington has not read Mr. Wesley extensively, or he has 
some purpose in the above statements. The statements of 
Mr. Wesley are quite contradictory, unless one has in his 
mind his explicit teaching concerning "original and actual 
sin." Mr. Wesley says : 

"The preceding texts were brought to prove (and they do 
abundantly prove it) that our nature is deeply corrupted, inclined 
to evil, and disinclined to all that is spiritually good ; so that, 
without supernatural grace, we can neither will nor do what is 
pleasing to God. And this easily accounts for the wickedness and 
misery of mankind in all ages and nations ; whereby experience 
and reason do so strongly confirm this Scriptural doctrine of orig- 
inal sin." 22 "The doctrine of original sin, and faith grounded 
thereon, is the only foundation of true piety." 23 

"I am 'carnal, sold under sin.' 'He means a willing slavery.' 
Quite the contrary ; as appears from the very next words : 'For 
that which I do, I allow not : for what I would, I do not ; but 
what I hate, that I do." "What I hate," not barely what my 
reason disapproves, but what I really detest and abhor, yet can 
not help. 

"But the Apostle can not mean that there is something in 
man which makes him sin whether he will or no, for then it would 
be no sin at all." "Experience explains his meaning. I have felt 
in me, a thousand times, something which made me transgress 
God's law, whether I would or no. Yet I dare not say that 'trans- 
gression of the law' was 'no sin at all.' " 24 



22 Works, Vol. V, p. 547. 23/^^.^.55!. 24/^.^.564. 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



i33 



"Nor can we infer from hence, that any man sins through a 
principle which it was never in his power to command, for then it 
would be no sin." "Upon this I would only ask, Are you assured 
that no man transgresses God's law (whether you will call it sin 
or not) through a principle which it was never in his power to 
command; at least, for any time together? Every passionate 
man can confute you in this. He has sad experience to the con- 
trary." 25 

"If you ask me, how, in what determinate manner, sin is 
propagated ; how it is transmitted from father to son ; I answer 
plainly, I can not tell ; no more than I can tell how man is propa- 
gated, how a body is transmitted from father to son. 1 know both 
the one and the other fact ; but I can not account for either." 26 
" 'Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother con- 
ceive me.' This is not a hyperbolical aggravation of David's 
early sins, and propensity to evil from his childhood. But the 
text is strong and plain in asserting sin some way to belong to 
his very conception, and to be conveyed from his natural parents ; 
which is a different idea from his actual sins, or propensity to 
sin in his infancy. It shows the cause both of this propensity 
and of his acutal sins, which operated before he was born. So 
that if original pravity be not so conveyed and derived as is here 
asserted, the words are not an exaggeration of what is, but a 
downright fiction of what is not." 27 

"Thus it appears that the Holy Scriptures, both in the Old 
and New Testaments, give us a plain and full account of the con- 
veyance of sin, misery, and death, from the first man to all his 
offspring." 28 "All the Scriptural expressions on this head are 
grounded on the real nature of things. 'Sin' is of the nature of 
'filth' and 'corruption.' It pollutes the whole man, and renders 
him as an 'unclean thing' in the sight of God." 29 

"To what dangerous lengths are men carried by an ignorance 
of God, as infinitely holy and just; by a fond conceit of their own 
abilities, and a resolved opposition to the doctrine of original sin ! 
Rather than allow this, they renounce Christ as the meritorious 
procurer of salvation for sinners. They may seem, indeed, to 
acknowledge Him as such, and talk of 'eternal life as given by 
God through His Son.' But all this is mere show, and can only 



25 Works. Vol. v, p. 566. 
28 ibid., p. 620. 



26 Ibid., p. 590. 27 Ibid., p. 6l8. 

**Ibid., p. 634. 



134 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



impose on the ignorant and unwary. They dare not profess, in 
plain terms, that Christ has merited salvation for any ; neither can 
they consistently allow this, while they deny original sin." 30 

"The doctrine, therefore, of original sin is not only a truth 
agreeable to Scripture and reason, but a truth of the utmost im- 
portance. And it is a truth to which the Churches of Christ, 
from the beginning, have borne a clear testimony." 31 

"How can this satisfy any reasonable man, that it is possible 
for us to be guilty of original sin, if the soul comes immediately 
from God?" "Now it is called Original Sin, because it was from 
the beginning, even as soon as ever Adam sinned ; secondly, be- 
cause it is with us from the beginning, even in conception, as soon 
as we do actually begin to be ; and, thirdly, because it is the begin- 
ning of all actual sin whatsoever. Howbeit, in the Scripture it 
is called by other names, as 'the old man' 'the body of sin' 'the 
sin that dwells in us,' . . . original sin is not only the want 
of righteousness, but also a proneness to unrighteousness, arising 
from the sin of Adam, and conveyed to us by natural propagation." 
"I conclude, therefore, that the nature of this sin consists in the 
corruption of nature, and the stream thereof runs in natural propa- 
gation." 32 "I would know of the adversaries of this doctrine, 
whether or not that wisdom and holiness, which was at first in 
Adam, was such as would have been communicated to his pos- 
terity, if he had not sinned? If this is allowed, then it must fol- 
low, so must sin and corruption since the fall." 33 

"But let this also be granted, that the soul is corrupted by the 
body, yet we can not have original sin ever the more for this, for 
the soul's yielding obedience to the body, and following the sinful 
motions thereof (if any such there be), is actual sin, and not that 
original corruption wherewith the whole man is infected from the 
loins of Adam. To conclude, seeing the body alone can not pos- 
sibly have original sin, nor give that which it hath not; original 
sin can not possibly come by the body." 34 "Original sin is a spir- 
itual leprosy hereditarily descending from Adam to all his natural 
posterity, infecting the whole man, both body and soul." 35 

"For, first, as by God's ordination, original sin passeth from 
one to all mankind, so by propagation all mankind proceed out of 

so Works, Vol. V, p. 639. & Ibid., 648. 

32 Arminian Magazine. Vol. VI, p. 98, 434-493. 33 Ibid., p. 494. 
uibid., p. 546. & Ibid. , p. 547. 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



135 



one. Secondly. As original sin overspreads the whole* man, both 
soul and body, so according to the course of nature the whole man, 
both soul and body, is propagated. Thirdly. As original sin is 
seated chiefly in the soul, according to the Scriptures, so the soul 
especially is propagated according to the course of nature." 36 

"When after having been convinced of inbred sin, by a far 
deeper and clearer conviction than that he experienced before 
justification, and after having experienced a gradual mortification 
of it, he experiences a total death to sin, and an entire renewal 
in the love and image of God, so as to rejoice evermore, to pray 
without ceasing, and in everything to give thanks. Not that 'to. 
feel all love and no sin' is a sufficient proof. Several have ex- 
perienced this for a time before their souls were fully renewed. 
None, therefore, ought to believe that the work is done till there 
is added the testimony of the Spirit, witnessing his entire sancti- 
fication as clearly as his justification." "If a man be deeply and 
fully convinced, after justification, of inbred sin; if he then ex- 
perience a gradual mortification of sin, and afterward an entire 
renewal in the image of God; if to this change, immensely greater 
than that wrought when he was justified, be added a clear, direct 
witness of the renewal, I judge it as impossible this man should 
be deceived herein as that God should lie." 37 

"It is exceeding certain that God did give you the second 
blessing, properly so called. He delivered you from the root of 
bitterness, from inbred as well as actual sin." 38 

How any one, with these quotations before him, can 
say that with Mr. Wesley "inbred sin" was "the will exer- 
cising itself sinfully" is hard to understand. That the will 
is sinful there is no question, but that a sinful will is in- 
bred sin Mr. Wesley never dreamed of, nor any other 
intelligent exponent of this truth. 

Writing on the text "I am carnal, sold under sin," in 
answer to the statement that Paul meant "a willing 
slavery," he says : "Quite the contrary, as appears from 



36 Artninian Magazine, Vol. VI, p. 603. 3 ? Plain Account, pp. 50, 51. 
38 Works, Vol. VII, p. 45. 



136 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



the very next words. 'For that which I do, I allow not; 
for what I would, I do not ; but what I hate, that I do.' 
'What I hate,' not barely what my reason disapproves, 
but what I really detest and abhor, yet can not help." 
"But the apostle can not mean that there is something in 
man which makes him sin whether he will or no, for then 
it would be no sin at all." Mr. Wesley's answer : "Expe- 
rience explains his meaning. I have felt in me a thousand 
times something which made me transgress God's law, 
whether I would or no, yet I dare not say that transgres- 
sion of the law was 'no sin at all.' " 

Here is his own experience, that contrary to his will 
he felt something which made him transgress God's law 
"whether he would or no." Surely this is not "voluntary 
transgression of a known law." Yet he dare not call it 
other than sin. 

He says, "Sin is propagated." He does not know how, 
but he knows the fact. In his comment on Psalm li, he 
says : "The text is strong and plain in asserting sin some 
way to belong to his very conception, and to be conveyed 
from his natural parents, which is a different idea from 
his actual sins. It is called Original Sin, because it was 
from the beginning; . . . because it is with us from 
the beginning, even in conception." Surely the element 
of willfulness is absent here. These conditions are not 
voluntary, even in his own case. 

These statements disprove the assertion that Mr. Wes- 
ley "uniformly adhered" to the one definition of sin as 
"a voluntary transgression of known law." 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



^37 



Why did not Dr. Huntington take up all Mr. Wesley's 
definitions of sin, and prove by them his statement? I 
challenge him to introduce the element of "a voluntary 
transgression of known law" into the above quotations, 
which are only a few of hundreds which might be intro- 
duced. 

Mr. Wesley did teach "two kinds of sin." The one 
voluntary, the other "inbred" or "propagated," to be 
cleansed by a "second blessing properly so called." Such 
unfair putting of things makes it all the more difficult to 
answer such a writer. We will again refer to this position 
of Mr. Wesley. 

We now proceed to answer Dr. Huntington's own defi- 
nitions of sin. We revere Mr. Wesley, and would need 
to be very clear in our conviction that he is wrong before 
parting with his valuable company. But if Dr. Hunting- 
ton can sustain his position concerning sin, we must aban- 
don ours. Let us see. 

These definitions are true of one phase of sin. "Sin 
consists in a wrong state of will relative to known obli- 
gation." "Sin consists in wrong intention." "Sin is a 
voluntary transgression of known law." But the state- 
ment that these definitions are true of not only "some sin, 
but is true of all sin, in this respect there are no two kinds 
of sin," is not true from a Scriptural or spiritual stand- 
point. 



138 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



SCRIPTURE DEFINITIONS. 
The Scriptures give the following definitions of sin : 

"All unrighteousness is sin." (i John v. 17.) 

''Sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John iii, 4.) 

"To him, therefore, that knoweth to do good, and doeth it 
not, to him it is sin." (Jas. iv, 17.) 

"In sin did my mother conceive me." (Psa. li, 5.) 

"If a soul shall sin through ignorarce against any of the com- 
mandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be 
done." "And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through 
ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, 
and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments 
of the Lord concerning things which should not be done, and are 
guilty." "When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through 
ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord his 
God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty. 
Or if his sin, wherein he has sinned, come to his knowledge, he 
shall bring his offering," etc. "And if a soul sin, and commit 
any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the com- 
mandments of the Lord ; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, 
and he shall bear his iniquity. And he shall bring a ram without 
blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offer- 
ing unto the priest ; and the priest shall make an atonement for 
him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not, 
and it shall be forgiven him. It is a trespass offering: he hath 
certainly trespassed against the Lord." (Lev. iv, 2-13, 22, 23; 
v, 17, 19.) 

"And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that 
sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the Lord, 
to make an atonement for him ; and it shall be forgiven him. Ye 
shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance. . . . 
But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, . . . the same 
reproacheth the Lord ; and that soul shall be cut off from among 
his people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and 
hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off ; 
his iniquity shall be upon him." (Num. ix, 28-31.) 

"For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adul- 
teries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies : these are 
the things which defile a man." (Matt, xv, 19, 20.) 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



139 



"They are all under sin." (Rom. iii, 9.) 

"By one man (by one offense) sin entered into the world, and 
death by sin, and so death passed upon all men (even over them 
that had not sinned after the similitude of- Adam's transgression) 
for that all have sinned." (Rom. v, 12, 14.) 

Here are Scriptural definitions of sin that have more 
than one meaning. Unrighteousness is an inherent state, 
and not necessarily voluntary. Sin is not necessarily a 
"voluntary" transgression of law, as the quotations from 
Leviticus and Numbers plainly show. The conception of 
David was not a sinful act, but an inevitable fact ; if he 
have existence at all, he must be conceived in sin, as all 
the race of mankind are. 

The consequence of Adam's sin was the introduction 
of lawlessness into our spirit-nature, not merely an incli- 
nation, but something actively adverse to righteousness — 
enmity to God. Not something at enmity, for this would 
imply that it might change its attitude. It is the law of 
sin and death. 

Paul says we are "by nature the children of wrath," 
and not by our willful violations of known law. This 
"spirit of disobedience worketh" independent of, and ante- 
cedent to, any volition on our part. The Discipline says : 
"We have no power to do good works pleasant and accept- 
able to God, without the grace by Christ preventing us, 
(1) that we may have a good will, and (2) working with 
us when we have that good will." Mr. Wesley calls this 
condition one of original sin. Paul writes of "the old 
man" and "the body of sin." This author makes all sin 
to exist in the will, while Jesus makes it to seat in the 



140 METHODIST THEOLOGY 



affectional life, of which this writer has said comparatively 
nothing. 

Mr. Wesley distinguished between selfishness — a state 
of the affections — which is the antithesis of love and self- 
will, the willful activities of this sinful self. Selfishness 
exists independent of the will, and forms a potent factor 
in determining the volitions. It is regnant before the soul 
discovers its true relation to Divine law. 

Unrighteousness is sin. It is not merely self-caused 
wrongness or inherent weakness, nor is it mere lack. It is 
the antithesis of righteousness. It may be increased by 
wilful transgressions of known law. Its first revealment 
is wrongness of being. Its manifestations antedate the 
revelations of the moral law, and consequently any misuse 
of freedom. The law reveals its character as "exceed- 
ingly sinful." The soul's first discovery is not his free- 
dom, but his bondage to sin. He is free to will, but not 
to obey law. Because of sin dwelling in him he can not 
do good. He clearly distinguishes between himself and 
the sin within him. To him it is a fact of consciousness 
when he says, "It is no more I, but sin that dwelleth 
in me." 

SIN IMPERSONAL. 

Dr. Huntington says, "Sin is never impersonal." Here 
is an impersonal, vital thing adverse to moral law and 
against all its revelations as a "law of sin and death," 
holds the sway until the "strong (old) man" is bound by 
a greater power and ultimately cast out, giving him the 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 141 

ability to serve God according to the demands of the law 
through the righteousness which is of God. 

If Paul emphasized anything throughout his writings, 
it is sin as a fact, is a matter of consciousness before its 
true relation to law is perceived. This is universal child 
consciousness. The reality is felt before a clear volition 
to violate known law is put forth. 

Paul says, "I had not known sin unless by the law." 
The law revealed the moral character of sin in its relation 
to God, the nature of which was felt in its activity, inde- 
pendent of choice, as a disturbing element, creating feel- 
ings through the sensibilities of antipathy to law. Sin is 
impersonal, vital, attested by the clearest consciousness, 
antecedent to volition, having a discerned quality before 
the revelations of the law reveal its exceeding sinfulness. 
Unrighteousness came to the race through Adam's sin. 
Righteousness is the gift of God though Jesus Christ our 
Lord. "All unrighteousness is sin." 

According to Dr. Huntington, without the knowledge 
of law sin is a nonentity. Paul does not say I should not 
have committed sin except by the law, but "I had not 
known sin but by the law." Desire is not sin, but there 
may be sinful desires antedating willful gratifications. 
Not natural desires with normal excitation, but unholy 
desires with abnormal, powerful motivity. 

When the law says, "Thou shalt not covet," I do not 
think I can covet, and this thought awakens a desire to 
covet, followed by a determination to covet. Such would 



i42 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



be the order in a pure nature ; but the unrenewed man dis- 
covers himself coveting because he has inherited covetous- 
ness as a phase of the manifestation of inherited sin. This 
is termed in the Scriptures "the besetting sin." 

Paul says sin "deceived me" and slew me. Something 
absolutely impossible if there is only one kind of sin, and 
that "a transgression of known law." It could not deceive 
if it was only possible to voluntary action. It is this char- 
acteristic of sin, denied by this author, which awakens the 
desire for full redemption. When this doctrine is preached 
a most profound awakening follows. This is the philos- 
ophy of the wonderful revival under the Wesleys; they 
revealed the true nature of sin, its deceitfulness and des- 
peration, as something within us requiring cleansing, cru- 
cifixion, destruction. 

Paul did not say that unregenerate men acted carnally. 
This is true, he said, they are "carnal," in a state of enmity 
to God and His law, and he shows this carnality is not 
themselves, though it dominates them. "It is no more I, 
but sin that dwelleth in me." With Paul the "me" and 
the "sin" are not identical. He would not say with this 
author, "Your sin is yourself." "In a most real sense it is 
you." He says it is something, "not I," stronger than 
himself, bringing him into captivity, from which he can 
not extricate himself. Consequently his cry, "Who shall 
deliver me ?" Surely he is not crying to be delivered from 
his own self-determinations, his voluntary acts. He is 
crying to be delivered from "indwelling," "inbred sin." 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



H3 



CHILDREN NEED THE ATONEMENT. 

If sin must be "a willful transgression of known law," 
then children do not commit sin, and as the atonement was 
made for sin children have no interest in it. Millions die 
who never made an unholy choice; therefore, according 
to this theory, millions of the race die without an interest 
in the atonement of Jesus Christ, and will never join in 
the song, ''Unto Him who hath loved us, and washed us 
from our sins in His own blood." 

Again, Paul taught that "the body of sin" would be 
destroyed. This is not transgression of known law, nor 
the sum of these transgressions. Transgressions are for- 
given, not destroyed. This is not ''yourself ;" this is some- 
thing to be destroyed in the interests of a true selfhood. 

This is something Mr. Wesley had in mind when he 
taught the destruction of "inbred sin." While he said 
holiness was more love, love made perfect, he knew that 
the affectional nature could not remain impure and perfect 
love be obtained. 

Dr. Huntington makes no reference to sins of igno- 
rance, which can not be transgressions of known law. 
They are surely "the inevitable effect" of antecedent sin ; 
at least they are not transgressions of known law. 

Whatever grace may do for mankind, there is nothing 
in the nature of law by which wrong acts caused by igno- 
rance can be excused. The Scriptures require an atone- 
ment for sins of ignorance. The fall of Adam has left us 
incapable of living without trespassing against God's law, 



i 4 4 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



so that when we have not trespassed against known law 
we ought and should pray, "Forgive us our trespasses." 

SINS OF IGNORANCE. 

Paul himself is an illustration of this truth. He says, 
"I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many 
things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth." Here 
is a man pressed with an apparent obligation he honestly 
sought to obey, who, when his nature was changed and he 
came to understand the true motives which prompted his 
conduct, says : "Who was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, 
and injurious; but I obtained mercy, because I did it 
ignorantly in unbelief." (i Tim. i, 13.) Because of this 
he calls himself the chief of sinners. 

How can Dr. Huntington insist, in the face of this 
witness, that all sin is voluntary transgression of known 
law. Paul was "a blasphemer and a persecutor," when 
he thought he was serving God. He intended serving 
God. He was deceived by a sinful nature. He was un- 
consciously violating the law of God. He was an actual 
blasphemer, a persecutor, and did not know it. Is not 
blasphemy and persecution sin? Not until truly awak- 
ened did he see his sin, and he positively affirmed that he 
did it "ignorantly." Here is an instance of serving God 
with the mind, while possessing a depraved affectional 
nature. He awakened to the fact later, that not merely 
the intention to do the will of God was sufficient, but the 
intention and motive with which it was done must be taken 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



i45 



into the account. He intended serving God, but dis- 
covered "an evil heart of unbelief" prevented it. 

Dr. Huntington includes unbelief in the volitions. Un- 
belief is not the protest of the will against law; it is the 
attitude of a nature which opposes law, and questions 
truth, expressed by the will. 

Arraying himself against Christ, he thought he was 
following the will of God, but awakens to the fact that 
it was inspired by unbelief, another illustration of the 
deceiving power of sin. A new nature revealed to him 
the true cause of all his former activities, of which he was 
heretofore ignorant. He saw that the law demanded love 
out of a pure heart, and he was following a letter which 
killeth. 

A moral nature may involuntarily transgress moral 
law, involving guilt to be forgiven, but not guilt to be 
condemned. If God has related the race to Adam's "one 
offense," we can not exclude it because our reason can not 
grasp the justice of it. If Adam's transgression has en- 
tailed upon us a nature opposed to Divine law, independent 
of our volitions, the law such a nature opposes must be 
in some way related to it. Spirit-nature is under spiritual 
law. Perverse spirit-nature is opposed to spiritual law. 
This inevitably places such natures, until changed by 
grace, in the category of sinners judicially, and lays the 
foundation for the need of an atonement to be made for 
them. They are not willful sinners, yet judicially under 
the wrath of God, and are "by nature the children of 
wrath;" not by their determinations, but by nature, be- 
10 



146 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



cause the law requires perfection of moral nature, as well 
as of conduct, and that can only be secured by the moral 
perfection of the being subject to the law. Whatever is 
not conformed to that standard is sin. Any lack in moral 
nature is sin, as lack in intellect is defect, or in body de- 
formity. 

This writer apparently separates the entire man in 
creating his standard of morals. He makes all morals to 
center in the volitions, and places the sensibilities in the 
realm of necessity. Willing is not an act independent of 
feeling or thinking. It is the being who wills, thinks, or 
feels. The unit thinks, wills, feels, and we can not sepa- 
rate what God, truth, and a sound philosophy have never 
separated. 

When Lord Chesterfield gave his son directions con- 
cerning negotiations with foreign ministers, he said: "If 
you engage their hearts you have a fair chance of impos- 
ing upon their understanding and determining their ivills." 
The character of the affections largely determines the 
motives which shall appeal to the will. If the sensibilities 
are bad, what may we expect the unassisted volitions to 
be? The law demands pure affectional nature. Love is 
to the sensibilities what thought is to the intellect, and 
motivity to the will. A volition independent of thought 
and in utter disregard for the sensibilities is not possible. 
Motives for volitional action are necessary, while they do 
not necessitate. Every choice has a motive back of it. 
The supreme motive should be goodness, by the harmoni- 
ous conformity of all our powers to the law of right. How 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



147 



can a carnal affection furnish such a motive? The will 
will never conform to such a law while its motivity orig- 
inates in an unregenerated affection. "That which is 
flesh is flesh," saith Christ. "Marvel not, that I said unto 
thee, Ye must be born from above." The sensibilities 
must be moved by superhuman power before we can use 
the pent-up liberty of our will to emancipate ourselves 
from our depraved natures. To conquer the carnal man, 
more is needed than volition ; we need the power of a puri- 
fied affection. This is the Scriptural method. But love 
can not operate where uncleanness reigns, consequently 
cleansing must precede empowering. Hardened sensi- 
bility to the degree of being "past feeling" seals the doom 
of an unregenerate spirit. It means past willing. Selfish 
motives precede volitionating. A good nature is domi- 
nated by high moral motives. 

When right is presented through the intellect, it has 
accomplished its task. The power which secures con- 
formity to that standard is in the affectional nature com- 
bining with the will. The heart must move in the direc- 
tion of right before the will can accomplish it. Neither 
the intellect, nor the will, nor both, make known to us that 
we have reached a true moral standard, for "with the 
heart man believeth unto righteousness." If one does not 
feel the fact he is right, he is left to reason himself 
into safe conclusions, which is impossible if the intellect 
is imperfect. 



148 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



RELATION OF A NATURE TO LAW. 

The law requires a nature divested of every feeling 
contrary to love. Has a depraved affectional nature no 
moral relation to such a law ? Qualities God is displeased 
with are ignored by this author, to make his theory of sin 
tenable. He does not recognize the pravity of the will, 
nor the law of obligation which antedates volitions. 

The absence of the motive of a pure affection, which is 
universally a strong one, leaves one without sufficient 
motivity to choose the good. Conscience and will are not 
sustained independent of an awakened affection. Love is 
right relation to law. Law should be lovingly obeyed ; 
anything less than that is not right, and unrighteousness 
is sin. We are commanded to love, which is more than 
willing to do so. Enmity, its antithesis, is a condition of 
the affections. The carnal mind is enmity, and when en- 
mity reigns love is impossible. We do not will to possess 
enmity toward God ; we feel it, though our will be other- 
wise. Light, reason, and law combined can not bring it 
into subjection. It must be made to cease by a greater 
power than these. Yet, while that inbred enmity is defy- 
ing our wills and bringing us into captivity to the law of 
sin, we are under the command to love God with all the 
heart and our neighbor as ourselves. The will can not 
remove the enmity, nor can it impart a pure affection. 
With obligation binding us, carnality incapacitating us, 
a sin-enfeebled will yielding to their power, we are led to 
cry for a new heart. It is the inability to obey obligation, 
not to will to obey, that awakens the cry for Divine assist- 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



149 



ance. Such is the nature of man since the fall, and such 
is the nature of the Divine law, that if gracious ability to 
will to love the good was not afforded, the race would be 
sinners eternally. We are, by nature, under the curse of 
the law. But Christ hath redeemed us, being made a curse 
for us. 

It is God's plan to control the entire man by the power 
of a true affection. Before the law one is no more excused 
for unholy desires and emotions, than for perverse deter- 
minations. It makes both blameworthy, though the con- 
sequences differ. Accountability is not conditioned alone 
by our volitions, but also by the motives prompting our 
determinations. 

The intellect presents an object to the sensibilities; 
they relate themselves to the object, if moral, by a feeling 
of obligation to accept or reject it, according to its moral 
quality, a most intense feeling of opposition may be 
aroused, untouched by the will ; indeed, it may call the 
will into service to manifest itself in some concrete form. 
Now this feeling is excluded by this author from the 
realm of morals. I aver it has a most positive moral 
quality; namely, badness, the religious term for which 
is sin. 

This author's own experience corroborates our view. 
He says: "For weeks following (the spiritual uplifts re- 
ferred to) not a movement of my nature disturbed the 
deep calm of my spirit." Surely he does not mean that 
he did not put forth any moral determinations during 
those weeks. No, he is referring to feelings. No doubt 



i5o METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



sustained by his volitions. Was the "deep calm" in his 
will or in his affectional nature? Had he no temptation 
and struggle in this interval? If he had, and the "deep 
calm" remained, he would only have a negative proof of 
the experience he was so earnestly seeking. Had Mr. 
Wesley's teaching been regarded, he might have been 
saved from his present dilemma of evolving a theology to 
corroborate a defective experience. Mr. Wesley said : 
"Not that to feel all love and no sin is sufficient proof. 
Several have experienced this for a time before their souls 
were fully renewed. (Evidently Dr. Huntington's experi- 
ence.) None, therefore, ought to believe that the work 
is done till there is added the testimony of the Spirit wit- 
nessing his entire sanctification, as clearly as his justifi- 
cation." 

Many have received this "testimony of the Spirit," 
and Dr. Huntington might have done so, if he had not 
rested in the flooding of his emotional nature. His re- 
lated experience is lacking in those steps which inevitably 
lead to Scriptural "entire sanctification." He does not 
allow in his thinking for that spiritual cleansing of which 
the sensibilities are a witness. Exaltation of feeling, in- 
tense emotions, and great peace may come to a soul with- 
out cleansing it from impurities. This he has experienced. 
But he has not experienced that cleansing of the nature 
through the atonement for sin, that is a distinctive doc- 
trine of Methodism. He places no value upon the cleans- 
ing blood of Christ. A volume upon "Sin and Holiness," 
which throughout ignores the cleansing of the heart 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



through faith in Jesus' blood, is not trustworthy from a 
Scriptural standpoint. 

A BLOODLESS SALVATION. 

The key to this author's difficulty and the false reason- 
ing of the book are found in the fact that sin can be 
treated without once referring to the atoning blood of 
Jesus Christ. 

We are conscious of our volitions ; we are also corn 
scious of movements of the sensibilities, not volitions, 
creating certain experiences, such as a sense of unclean- 
ness, defilement, impurity, and furnishing motivity for 
unholy conduct. We relate the unclean heart to the act 
and recognize its power in aiding the will. We blame our 
hearts for a disposition to disobey law. Thoughts ante- 
date volition ; there are pure thoughts and impure 
thoughts, the affectional nature from which they flow de- 
termine their quality. There is a filthiness of spirit, as 
well as a filthiness of the flesh. Religious progress is con- 
ditioned upon the state of the emotional and affectional 
natures. The Christian discovers that which the Scrip- 
ture calls sin is not volitional, but an impure state of the 
affections reaching to the volitions, and in the degree they 
are influenced thereby, limiting its liberty. If such cur- 
tailment of liberty means non-responsibility before the 
law, the more depraved the nature the nearer innocent one 
is. We do not proceed upon that principle in our rela- 
tions to badness. 

We are equally conscious of the power of a purified 



i52 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



affectional nature producing feelings as subjective proofs 
of a true religious experience. Jesus said, "Blessed are 
the pure in heart." There is a consciousness of cleansed 
sensibilities under the law of necessity in this regard ; 
that the will does not create them, is not responsible for 
them, can not change them, yet they are essential to a 
volition free from perversity. Consciousness attests a 
power graciously acting upon the will through a purified 
sensibility, making it delightful to do the will of God. 
We do not refer to the ability to obey duty continually, 
but the love of the Person and His will, so that the 
supremest pleasure is found in doing His will. Regener- 
ation gives us a controlling power over our sensibilities. 
Sanctification gives us a purified sensibility. The ideal 
volition never exists without a purified affectional nature. 

Millions who have not understood the Divine method 
of purifying the affections, because of false teaching, but 
who have subsequently found the way and have obtained 
the experience, never blame their wills for not finding 
the way. In so far as man is away from God by the state 
of his nature, the will ceases to be sovereign and becomes 
the servant of a depraved affectional nature. It takes a 
true affection as well as a strong will to endow man with 
executive ability to do good as God would have it done. 

Volition is not the tree that Christ said should be made 
good. He was dealing with the heart. Whatever may 
have been the original order of the sovereignty of the will, 
since the first evil volition created a perverse nature, it 
has become the master of the will. Man is now a moral 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



i53 



leper, and leprosy is not analogous to volitionating. His 
greatest struggle is not with his will, but with himself. 
As long as men lose sight of this they are astray from the 
truth. Change the afTectional life, and the process has 
begun which will ultimate in Christian perfection. Simply 
not willing evil toward our neighbor is not Christianity, 
nor salvation from sin. We are commanded to love. The 
obligation Divine law imposes is that we approach all men 
with a heart full of love. This the natural man can not 
do. An impure nature can not make the happiness of 
others his own. The real seat of sin is in the heart. Sin 
paralyzes the affections and the will. Christ most emphat- 
ically locates sin in the heart (Matt, xv, 19, 20), while He 
acknowledges a limited freedom. 

There are some sayings in these definitions of sin 
which could easily catch the unwary, such as : 

"Can that be our sin which is upon us by unavoidable inherit- 
ance?" 31 * "We can not predicate sin of an unavoidable effect." 40 
"If some of the effects of Adam's sin are for that reason sin, then 
all the effects of ancestral sin must, for that same reason, be also 
sin. Why not?" 41 

This method of reasoning seems plausible indeed, but 
is fallacious in the extreme, for the question involved is 
whether anything inherited can be sin, and it can not be 
settled by a dogmatic statement. We inherit a moral 
nature. I suppose Dr. Huntington would not deny that. 
Moral natures have qualities ; viz., good or bad, pure or 
impure, righteous or sinful. The Scriptures call that sin 



39 p. 5I . 40 p. I3 . « p. 59 . 



i54 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



which is inherited ; namely, a nature actuated by enmity 
to God, not because that nature will ultimately lead to 
willful transgressions, but because it is now violating 
Divine law, and will continue to do so while that state 
of nature remains. This is our nature, consequently our 
sin as far as it is our being; but not our sin in the sense 
of being self-originated. We can easily distinguish be- 
tween "the sin which doth so easily beset us" — what Mr. 
Wesley calls our "constitutional sin" — and our own vo- 
litional acts, by which we consciously introduce personal 
forms of violating Divine law. Though this state is the 
product of an original volition, it is not subject to volition, 
can not be perpetuated by it, and is frequently contrary 
to it. There is a state of sin, as well as an act of sin. How 
can we have a sinful state, with sin excluded from it? 
An act and a state are not synonymous. What the Greeks, 
as philosophers, called evil, the Scriptures call sin, and the 
scientists the law of heredity. In this sense the effects of 
Adam's sin upon our nature is called sin, because of its 
relation to moral law. If there is no moral law governing 
the affections, all moral obligation would end in the will, 
as Dr. Huntington teaches. But we are conscious of most 
positive obligations requiring pure affections. The moral 
law requires purity of heart, as truly as it demands the 
obedience of the will. An impure affectional nature vio- 
lates moral law. So there is "sin in believers" which is 
not "the sin of believers," as voluntary transgression of 
known law. The fallacy of Dr. Huntington's theory is the 
category in which he places the affections in his moral 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



i55 



system. He confounds the sensuous and the affectional 
nature. The secret of Gospel conviction is a conscious- 
ness of sin. If one is led to call that sin only which is 
voluntary, he can easily sever his relation to Adam's trans- 
gression, and do great violence to the Pauline conception 
of the nature and penalty of sin, and fall into the error of 
Pelagius. Paul said, "By one man's disobedience many 
were made sinners." Pelagius and Dr. Huntington say 
by your own disobedience you are made a sinner. 

CONTRADICTS HIMSELF. 

Dr. Huntington recognizes sin which is not a voluntary 
transgression of known law. He says : 

"That there is a great difference between Christians and those 
who are not Christians in their respective attitudes of thought, 
feeling, and purpose toward what they regard as sin in them- 
selves, is very true. By the one it is held in abhorrence, and when 
seen is quickly followed by sorrow and repentance." 42 

So sin is in existence before it is seen to be such, which 
"when seen" is quickly followed by sorrow and repent- 
ance. Now, this is exactly what we hold, but it can not 
come under Dr. Huntington's definition of a voluntary 
transgression of known law. More and more he becomes 
tangled in the web of his own argument. Illustrating 
what he means, he says : 

"The difference between sin in a sinner and sin in a Christian 
has been pertinently compared to 'the difference that there is be- 
tween poison in a rattlesnake and the virus of the serpent injected 
into a healthy man. The venom is natural in the reptile. He 



42 P. 89. 



156 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



delights in it, secretes it, and cherishes it with pleasure. But all 
the vital forces of the man resists the injected poison, and rally 
to thrust it out of the system.' " 43 

Again, that is just what we hold. He says sin is natu- 
ral to the sinner; then it is not purely volitional. The 
serpent does not will to secrete the poison ; nature secretes 
it. It is there before the serpent has any use for it. It is 
in no sense the product of intention or purpose. Concern- 
ing the healthy man, he does not voluntarily choose to be 
bitten, and the resistance of nature would be the same 
whether he willed it or no. It would be the same in a 
lesser degree if he was unhealthy, or even sick ; but he 
would succumb to it sooner. In all this he is treating of 
sin in a sinner and sin in a Christian. Will he please 
point out the voluntary element in either case ? The trans- 
gression of a known law. The serpent does not trans- 
gress any known law, and the resistance of the virus is not 
a transgression of known law. The virus is neither the 
serpent nor the man, but something coming from the one 
to the other, as sin has been transmitted from Adam to his 
posterity. Something to be "eradicated." The utter ab- 
sence of anything like "a transgression of known law" 
in this illustration is remarkable. 

No wonder Dr. Huntington fears placing any stress 
upon the sensibilities. Twice he has been deceived by 
them. Certain feelings ensued in both cases while seeking 
deliverance from inbred sin. When they subsided, what 
he understood to be inbred sin remained. His error was 



43 P. 90. 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



i57 



that he rested in his feelings. He never saw the reality 
we claim exists for those who Scripturally seek it. The 
reality essential to be grasped by faith is not "a gracious 
uplift in spiritual life," nor inbred sin "more easily and 
steadily controlled," nor yet "a deep calm" of spirit. All 
these precede purity, and may frequently occur. The re- 
ality to be sought, prayed for, and experienced is a sense 
of inward pureness, for which faith perceives cleansing 
as a process through the blood of Jesus Christ. This 
realized is not a feeling, though accompanied by feeling. 
It is not an emotion or a movement of the sensibilities. 
It is a perception of self-hood made pure in Christ's cleans- 
ing blood. A subjective state, apprehended by faith, pro- 
ducing varied feelings and emotions. 

Dr. Huntington says he did not obtain this; we can 
not doubt his word. Had he done so, he never could have 
written "Sin and Holiness." Millions say they have ob- 
tained and retained this, and it is folly for him to argue 
that because he did not obtain it no one else has. His task 
is not to deny the testimony of the witnesses, but to show 
a thinking world that no such thing exists, or, indeed, 
can exist. This his book has utterly failed to do. 

By casting everything not volition into the mold of 
necessity he easily dispensed with many vital truths, and 
removed the affectional life from the sphere of morals. 
Consciousness assures us that we may have wrong affec- 
tions, which are not the results of our self-determination, 
but contrary to them. One may feel hatred without will- 
ing it to exist, and be conscious that a divinely-assisted 



158 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



will prevents its manifestation, so that none but its pos- 
sessor is conscious of its presence. Consciousness proves 
the existence of such feelings previous to volitions. It 
also proves the existence of a feeling that such feelings 
should not exist, and that they are contrary to Divine law. 
There is a consciousness of the removal of all such feel- 
ings, and that a pure affectional life controls the entire 
man. This consciousness continues as long as the terms 
upon which it is bestowed are met. Such is experience. 
No testimony from any source contradicting this con- 
sciousness can be believed. The witnesses are too reli- 
able; the facts of their experiences agree. There is such 
a variety of intellects, temperaments, and classes among 
the witnesses who only agree upon this one thing, that it 
can not be itself the product of a type or a temperament. 
It is a Divinely-wrought experience. Philosophers, meta- 
physicians, and scholars agree to the reasonableness of 
the testimony, who do not claim to have obtained the ex- 
perience. Dr. Huntington's negation can not destroy sub- 
jective reality. 

SIN IN THE HEART. 

The very quotations used by Dr. Huntington are 
against him. He quotes Mr. Wesley's definition of sin : 
"But is voluntary transgression of a known law a proper 
definition of sin? I think it is, of all such sin as is im- 
puted to our condemnation." Does he not see that Mr. 
Wesley taught sin that was not "imputed to our condem- 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



i59 



nation?" He says, "With Wesley, inward sin was sin 
committed in the heart, though not necessarily expressed 
in outward action ; it zvas voluntary sin."** We will quote 
some of Mr. Wesley's sayings concerning sin in the heart : 

"By sin I here understand inward sin; . . . any dispo- 
sition contrary to the mind which was in Christ." "Is there, then, 
no sin in his heart (a justified man) ?" 45 "How naturally do those 
who experience such a change imagine that all sin is gone, that 
it is utterly rooted out of the heart, and has no more any place 
therein. I feel no sin, therefore I have none; it does not stir; 
therefore it does not exist. It has no motion; therefore it has no 
being." 46 

Of the justified man he says: 

"But was he not then freed from all sin, so that there is no 
sin in his heart. I can not say this ; I can not believe it, because 
St. Paul says to the contrary. (Gal. v, 17.) The apostle here 
directly affirms that the flesh, evil nature, opposes the Spirit, even 
in believers." 47 

"And as this position, there is no sin in a believer, no carnal 
mind, no bent to backslu 'ng, is thus contrary to the Word of 
God, so it is to the experience of His children. These continually 
feel a heart bent to backsliding; a natural tendency to evil; a 
proneness to depart from God, and cleave to the things of earth. 
They are daily sensible of sin remaining in the heart." "I can not, 
therefore, by any means receive this assertion, that there is no 
sin in a believer from the moment he is justified; first, because 
it is contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture ; secondly, because 
it is contrary to the experience of the children of God ; thirdly, 
because it is absolutely new, never heard of in the world till yes- 
terday ; and, lastly, because it is naturally attended with the most 
fatal consequences : not only grieving those whom God hath not 
grieved, but perhaps dragging them into everlasting perdition." 48 



44 P. 43. 45 Sermons, Vol. I, p. 109. ^Ibid., p. 385. 47 Ibid., p. 109 
^ Ibid., pp. 110, in. 



i6o METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



That Mr. Wesley does not mean "voluntary sin" is 
clear from these expressions concerning those who are 
born of God : 

"By sin I here understand outward sin, according to the plain 
acceptation of the word ; an actual, voluntary transgression of the 
law ; of the revealed, written law of God ; of any commandment 
of God, acknowledged to be such at this time that it is trans- 
gressed.' 43 "There is no condemnation to them which 'walk after 
the Spirit' by reason of inward sin still remaining so long as they 
do not give way thereto ; nor by reason of sin cleaving to all they 
do. Then fret not thyself because of ungodliness, though it still 
remain in thy heart." 50 

"Not only sin, properly so called (that is, a voluntary trans- 
gression of a known law), but sin, improperly so called (that is, 
an involuntary transgression of a Divine law, known or un- 
known), needs atoning blood." "Sin is entailed upon me, not by 
immediate generation, but by my first parent." "In Adam all 
died;" "by the disobedience of one, all men were made sinners." 

Surely the voluntary element is absent in these state- 
ments of Mr. Wesley. 

WESLEY ON INBRED SIN. 

Again, Dr. Huntington teaches that "inbred sin" as 
taught by Mr. Wesley was the "will exerting itself" sin- 
fully, and says that "Those who now talk of 'inbred sin,' 
with the proper distinctions in mental operations in their 
thought, may easily use the very words of Wesley, and 
at the same time mean what he never meant." Let us see 
what Mr. Wesley said about inbred sin : 

"Till it pleases God, after he is thoroughly convinced of in- 
bred sin, of the total corruption of his nature, to take it all away; 
to purify his heart and cleanse him from all unrighteousness ; to 



49 Sermons, Vol. I, p. 164. ^Ibid. y p. 70. 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



161 



fulfill that promise which He made first to His ancient people, and 
in them to the Israel of God in all ages : 'I will circumcise thy 
heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with 
all thy heart and with all thy soul." 51 

"Though we watch and pray ever so much, we can not wholly 
cleanse either our hearts or our hands. Most surely we can not 
till it shall please our Lord to speak to our hearts again, to speak 
the second time, be clean ; and then only the leprosy is cleansed. 
Then only, the evil root, the carnal mind is destroyed ; and inbred 
sin subsists no more." 52 

Mr. Wesley knew enough to include volition in his 
writing if he included it in his thinking concerning inbred 
sin. He makes it synonymous with the corruption of his 
nature, something to be purified, to be taken away; not 
something to volitionate away, or that ceases to exist 
when volition ceases. When the "leprosy" is gone, "the 
carnal mind" destroyed, "inbred sin subsists no more." 

Dr. Huntington says : "If it be true that, according 
to the accepted classification of mental operations, pride, 
envy, and even unbelief, may exist as mere feeling involv- 
ing no action of the will, Wesley did not so understand 
it." 53 Let us see. Mr. Wesley says : 

"Once more, when the apostle exhorts believers . to 'cleanse 
themselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit,' he plainly teaches 
that those believers were not yet cleansed therefrom. 

"Will you answer, 'He that abstains from all appearance of 
evil' does ipso facto 'cleanse himself from all filthiness?' Not in 
any wise. For instance : a man reviles me ; I feel resentment, 
which is filthiness of spirit ; yet I say not a word. Here I 'abstain 
from all appearance of evil,' but that does not cleanse me from 
that filthiness of spirit as I experience to my sorrow." 

"'But can Christ be in the same heart where sin is?' Un- 
doubtedly He can. . . . Christ indeed can not reign where sin 



61 Sermons, Vol. II, p. 222. 52 jbid., p. 122. 53 Sin and Holiness, p. 45. 
II 



i6 2 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



reigns. Neither will He dwell where any sin is allowed. But He 
is and dwells in the heart of every believer who is fighting against 
all sin; although He is not yet purified." "Every babe in Christ 
. . . is saved from sin ; yet not entirely ; it remains, though it 
does not reign. If you think it does not remain (in babes at least) 
you certainly have not considered the height, and depth, and 
length, and breadth of the law of God (even the law of love laid 
down by St. Paul in the thirteenth of First Corinthians) and that 
every ( auofxia ) disconformity to or deviation from this law 
is sin." 

"But believers walk after the Spirit. . . . Consequently 
they are delivered from the guilt, the power, or in one word, the 
being of sin.' Ans. These are coupled together as though they 
were the same thing. But they are not the same thing. The 
guilt is one thing, the power another, and the being another. That 
believers are delivered from the guilt and pozver of sin we allow ; 
that they are delivered from the being of it we deny. ... A 
man may have the Spirit of God dwelling in him and may 'walk 
after the Spirit,' though he feels the flesh lusting against the 
Spirit." "Resentment of an affront is sin, it is avofiia, disconform- 
ity to the law of love. Yet it did not and does not reign . . . 
in the instance before us, if the resentment I feel is not yielded 
to, even for a moment, there is no guilt at all, no condemnation 
from God on that account. And in this case it has no power; 
though it lusteth against the Spirit it can not prevail. Here, 
therefore, as in ten thousand cases, there is sin without cither 
guilt or power. 54 Herein he differs from unregenerate men. They 
obey sin ; he does not." "A man may be in God's favor though 
he feel sin, but not if he yields to it. Having sin does not forfeit 
the favor of God ; giving way to sin does." 55 

Will Dr. Huntington tell us why Mr. Wesley discrimi- 
nates between feeling and yielding, giving way to, and 
obeying sin? If he wanted to include an "action of the 
will ?" If he does not know, millions of Christians do, that 
they possess feelings aroused through the affectional na- 
ture, unsought, which they reject, loathe, and deplore, 



54 Wesley's Sermons, Vol. I, pp. 113-115. ^ /did., p. 115, 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 163 



but under no circumstances yield to. Take Mr. Wesley's 
case of resentment; it has a declared moral character, 
"filthiness of spirit ;" contrary to the law of love. Where 
does the will relate itself to this resentment? It is spon- 
taneous ; the will has not originated it. Without Divine 
aid it will not control it. Does Dr. Huntington teach that 
one does not feel the spirit of anger before he wills to be 
angry ? If he does, he denies the consciousness of millions. 
Does he hold that the anger is simply temptation until 
yielded to? Temptation, per se, has no moral quality. 
Anger felt may be righteous or sinful. We clearly dis- 
tinguish betv/een them. Jesus had the one, but not the 
other. 

CONDITIONED FREEDOM. 

Dr. Huntington argues throughout his book for a free- 
dom of will, which was forfeited by Adam's fall, and can 
only be fully restored by perfectly restoring the moral 
image of God. The will is involved in the fall, and is 
only free as Christ makes it free. Man's will is abnormal 
and selfish before it is a conscious will. A depraved will, 
unassisted by grace, can not will righteousness, conse- 
quently its volitions can not be pure. If, on account of its 
depravity, the will is self-determined in wrongness, such 
determination is none the less sin. It is a transgression 
of the law. Consciousness informs us of activity of the 
will not self-caused, and consequently not a free volition. 
Pure will performs a self-originated act. Of nothing are 
we surer than that we can not trace evil self-determination 
to an original, personal intention to become evil, while we 



1 64 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



can clearly discern our own evil intentions. In seeking 
the cause from the effect, we hold to an organic connec- 
tion between children and parent, and that the willful de- 
terminations of the parents are germinally present in the 
children as a disposition, called sinful. It is this state of 
being that Christ makes responsible for the evil conduct 
of the race. Selfishness is not self in action consenting to 
evil, or intending it ; it is an impure state of the affections, 
which has never been removed by any amount of volition- 
ating good. Will does not govern self. It is self in action 
in a restricted manner. There are functions of the man 
that are only qualifiedly subject to the will. Indeed, they 
restrict the will as to its activity. Lack of intelligence, 
depraved sensibilities, prejudices, passions, impure affec- 
tions, leave the will incapable of being right. This an- 
swers the Scriptural statement, "To will is present," but 
"how to perform that which is good is not." "It is no 
more I that work it, but sin which dwelleth in me." There 
is a power called sin which captivates the man, will and 
all, and it determines the attitude he shall take towards 
the law of God. Everything else is perfect when it is 
made, and can not break law ; but the human race is pro- 
created with a spirit of lawlessness in control of the nature, 
and that is "inbred," "inward," "indwelt sin," according 
to the Scriptures and Wesley and experience. 

Who has not seen self-will in a child of very tender 
age? While gazing upon "its manifestations, has any 
moral philosopher ever detected the element of voluntari- 
ness ? or because "the voluntary transgression of a known 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



165 



law" could not be detected, decide it was not lawlessness ? 
But all lawlessness and all unrightness is sin. Jesus said 
of the mob which crucified Him, "They know not what 
they do." Will Dr. Huntington insist they did not sin in 
what they did ? 

PLAYING WITH TERMINOLOGY. 

Only a passing notice is necessary to the argument, 
"that in all this list of descriptive definitions of what is 
said to be inbred sin, there is not a term or phrase which 
is ever used in the Bible." 56 We are not playing with 
terminology, but dealing with spirit realities. Dr. Hunt- 
ington recognizes something as the result of Adam's fall. 
He says, "We are both deprived and depraved." Why 
does he not use Scriptural terms ? Such argument is un- 
becoming to the man. 

ANCESTRAL SIN. 

Again, he holds that if any of the effects of Adam's 

sin is sin, then all the effects are sin. He says : 

"To deny that these physical results of preceding sin are 
themselves sin, is to deny that anything is sin because of its rela- 
tion to Adamic or ancestral sin. This, in one way, concedes the 
whole question. It admits that the effects of parental sin, near 
or remote, are not, for that reason, properly called sin. It is an 
admission that a voluntary element must enter into whatever can 
be called sin." 57 

This argument has already been met. It is purely 
gratuitous to insert "willful" in the definition of sin. It 
is not necessarily a "willful transgression." The moral 



56 p. 53. 57 pp. 59) 60. 



166 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



law must be broken for sin to exist. The whole question 
hinges upon the relation of a nature to moral law. If 
volition, pure and simple, is the only thing which relates 
to moral law, then babes sustain no relation to it what- 
ever, and the greater part of ourselves is not under moral 
law. This is not true. Adam's sin, by virtue of our 
divinely-appointed relation to it, gives us a necessitated 
moral nature; like a sinful act of our own, if we were 
originally like Adam, would do. This necessitated nature 
is opposed to Divine law, but this is not the fault of God. 
This author may question Divine wisdom for making such 
a relation to exist, but it does exist, and since Adam's sin 
human nature is sinful in its moral nature, perverse in its 
volitional nature, darkened in its intellectual nature, and 
diseased in its physical nature. All these are the effects 
of Adam's sin ; but all these effects are not sin, because sin 
can only exist in a moral nature. 

The Scriptures clearly distinguish between personal 
guilt by willful transgression, and judicial guilt by dis- 
conformity of being to Divine law. For the last there is 
no personal condemnation as for the first. 

INBRED SIN IN CHILDREN. 

This author seems confident that the doctrine of inbred 

sin makes it difficult for its advocates to deal . with the 

question of infant salvation. He says: 

"It maintains that 'inbred sin' exists in children, previous to 
accountability, in such a sense that they are unfitted for heaven; 
that, in the cases of those children who die in infancy, a work of 
the Holy Spirit is wrought in them, at or near death, by which 



SIN AND HOLINBSS. 167 



their 'birth sin' is removed, and that they are thus prepared to 
enter heaven; but that, in the cases of children who continue to 
live, God allows their 'inbred sin' to remain. 

"Now we venture to say that there is not a line in the Word 
of God which teaches that infants need the removal of 'inbred 
sin' in order to their entrance into heaven. Nor is there one inti- 
mation that any such work of removal is ever wrought in dying 
children, or that the Holy Spirit does a work in children who 
die, which He does not do in those who live. . . . Does God 
will the removal of 'inbred sin' from infant children at their 
death, but wills that it shall remain in them from their birth to 
their death? Is it His will that it should be taken away from 
children who die, but His will that it should remain in all those 
who live? It would seem impossible for persons to accept these 
conclusions except at the extortionate demands of a theory." 58 

Such fallacious reasoning ! Let us see. Dr. Hunting- 
ton holds that we are "both deprived and depraved" as the 
result of Adam's sin. He does not locate the depravity; 
whether in the will, affections, or intellect, or all, he does 
not say. Beyond doubt it is a great disadvantage in every 
way. Let us take his method of reasoning. There is not 
a line in the Word of God which teaches that infants need 
the removal of inbred depravity in order to their entrance 
into heaven. Nor is there one intimation that any such 
work of removal is ever wrought in dying children, or 
that the Holy Spirit does a work in children who die, 
which He does not do in those who live. Does God will 
the removal of inbred depravity from infant children at 
their death, but wills that it should remain in them from 
their birth to their death? Is it His will that it should 
be taken away from children who die, but His will that 
it should remain in all those who live? It would seem 



58 Pp. 64,65. 



i68 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



impossible for persons to accept these conclusions, "except 
at the extortionate demands of a theory." Will he take the 
logic of his own argument, and deny his own statement 
concerning depravity? or will he hold they go to heaven 
with their depravity ? or will he cease such foolish reason- 
ing, and admit "inbred sin" as well as inbred depravity? 

The implication is that God is unjust to leave inbred 
sin in the living child, if he can sovereignly take it away 
from the dying child. Why does not God sovereignly 
take the harmful depravity from the living child (that he 
teaches it possesses), when it is there without its intention 
or consent ? Let us go behind this a little. Why did God 
relate us by procreation, so that we impart evil, and can 
not impart spiritual good ? Or the old question, Why does 
God permit evil at all ? I am surprised at this reasoning, 
and verily believe that it would not exist "except at the 
extortionate demands of a theory." This writer supposes 
an insurmountable difficulty over the same problem con- 
cerning adult believers who have "inbred sin." Let us 
see. Everything the race forfeits by Adam's transgression 
is recovered to it in Jesus Christ. Consciously or other- 
wise, all who do not reject willfully any proffered grace 
are entitled to all that Jesus has secured to them. This 
relates to the entire race. We are no more responsible for 
inbred sin, than for death, as to its existence. According 
to Dr. Huntington, God ought to translate the babies so 
they should not see death, and end all their sufferings 
while they live. They lose nothing by passing through 
death. The idiocy and imbecility produced by ancestral 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



169 



sin is only a temporary loss. God could, if he would, 
make every imbecile and idiotic child intelligent. Why 
does n't He, according to this writer's theory ? Is there 
no such thing as the spiritual quickening of a child nature 
because such a thing is not declared or can be explained ? 
Are there no realities in the spiritual kingdom beyond our 
understanding? Will Dr. Huntington tells us how the 
depravity is imparted ? How he knows it exists ? How it 
is removed? And what becomes of it when it is taken 
away? etc. 

As to "this class of Christians" being saved from their 
carnality "without any condition on their part." Is not 
God doing much for the race unconditionally ? It remains 
for Dr. Huntington to prove that this can not be done. 
In the meantime the Church will secure a decided advan- 
tage if the work of the removal of inbred sin should go on 
as it did at first, dispensing with all argument of its re- 
moval at death. That God removes what is called "inbred 
sin" now, is a fact abundantly proven by the most reliable 
witnesses. That is a proof He can do it at death, in those 
whose moral consciousness was slow in grasping the meas- 
ure of the Divine ability to save. But to argue because 
God does not do certain things He can not do others, is 
folly indeed. 

SIN IN THE SENSIBILITIES. 

Again, he says, "The theory under discussion predi- 
cates sin of the phenomena of the sensibility." 59 Who so 



59 p. 71. 



iio METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



teaches ? Sin is manifest in and through the sensibilities, 
and consciousness first detects its presence there, in an 
impure heart ; but there may be the most diversified phe- 
nomena of the sensibilities with no consciousness of un- 
cleanness, "enmity to God," "filthiness of the spirit," or 
selfishness. It is conceded that the presence of sin is mani- 
fest through the sensibilities subsequent to regeneration. 
We concede that the sensibilities are under the law of 
necessity; but we do not concede that the sensibilities 
produce sin. They are the guarantees of its presence and 
the strongest guarantees of its absence, behind which we 
can not go, necessitating the witness of the Holy Spirit 
to one's entire sanctification. Sin is not a derangement of 
the sensibilities ; but what deranges them ? It is a state 
of selfhood manifested to consciousness through the sensi- 
bilities. It does not "exclude the will" from any part of it ; 
but it carries the will with it by its power. 
Again, he says : 

"This theory of 'inbred sin,' therefore, declares that to be sin 
which exists by inevitable causation. It affirms moral character of 
that which comes into being as inevitably as if decreed by God 
from all eternity." 60 

This is exactly what we affirm as to inevitability. Its 
moral character would be good "if decreed by God from 
all eternity," because He can not decree otherwise, and 
we would be seeking His purpose in its existence. But 
while inevitable it was not unavoidable, and is not only not 
decreed by God, but contrary to His Divine decree. He 



60 P. 72. 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



171 



made us different, and we again return to the question 
of what God considers the result of Adam's transgression 
which made us all sinners. Again : 

"What this theory therefore calls 'sin in believers/ is really 
temptation. It is evil suggestion, and at most solicitation to sin. 
It may be, and is tendency to sin ; it is inclination to sin ; but so 
long as it goes no further than the excited movements of the 
sensibility, it is not sin ; it is temptation only." 01 

This reasoning is subtle indeed. Here is "evil sug- 
gestion," "tendency to sin," "inclination to sin," only 
temptation. Then Christ had within Him evil suggestion, 
solicitation to sin, tendency to sin, inclination to sin. 
Awful ! Why does Dr. Huntington exclude "filthiness of 
the spirit," "enmity to God," "selfishness," etc ? Are these 
merely temptation ? 

ARTICLES OF METHODISM. 

Again, Dr. Huntington finds a negative argument in 
the absence of certain things from the article in the Meth- 
odist Discipline on "Original Sin." He says : 

"In forming the Seventh Article for American Methodism 
Wesley did not change the title, but he did change the article 
itself. Three important declarations contained in the original 
article concerning this 'original or birth sin' were by Wesley en- 
tirely omitted. One of these declarations was to the effect that, 
though believers are not condemned because of their original sin, 
yet it 'hath of itself the nature of sin.' " G2 

Let us see. This drowning-man habit of catching at 
straws seems quite common to this writer. What are the 



61 p. 75. 62 p. 83. 



172 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



facts? Let us quote the two articles. The Ninth of the 
Church of England reads thus: 

"Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the 
Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault or corruption of the 
nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring 
of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteous- 
ness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh 
lusteth always contrary to the Spirit, and, therefore, in every per- 
son born into this world it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. 
And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are 
regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh, called in the Greek 
<ppovr)/xa <rapKo?, which some do expound the wisdom, some sen- 
suality, some the affections, some the desire of the flesh, is not 
subject to the law of God. And, though there is no condemnation 
for them that believe and are baptized, yet the apostle doth con- 
fess that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin." 

This is the article as it appears in the Articles of Re- 
ligion of the Methodist Episcopal Church : 

"Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the 
Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature 
of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of 
Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, 
and his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually." 

Notice, Mr. Wesley uses the word sin, and in no sense 
gives it a voluntary aspect. That he omitted some of the 
other article is true. Probably he omitted the sentence 
Dr. Huntington uses, because of the doctrine of baptismal 
regeneration implied in it. Now, let us apply his reason- 
ing. Mr. Wesley failed to insert one clause in which the 
word sin is included ; therefore he had abandoned the doc- 
trine of birth sin. Mr. Wesley taught the "sanctity of the 
Sabbath," "endless punishment," "the witness of the 
Spirit," none of which are found in the Articles of Re- 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



i73 



ligion. Are we therefore to conclude that he utterly aban- 
doned these doctrines before that time ? If Dr. Hunting- 
ton is consistent, he will as persistently insist that he did. 

CORRECTION VS. ERADICATION. 

Dr. Huntington takes the usual course concerning the 

results of Adam's sin that all deniers of inbred sin do. 

He denies the disturbing element, and then says : 

"The same may be said of the word 'destroyed' and other cog- 
nate terms, as used in this connection. None of them express 
the need of the depraved soul or propose the proper remedy. Bad 
as the human heart is, there is nothing in it to destroy. . . . 
The change needed in the sensibility is correction. . . . From 
being the master of the reason and the will, the sensibility needs 
to be brought back to its place, as the obedient servant of both. 
Depravity is not a creation: it is a perversion. It does not admit 
of annihilation; if it did, annihilation is not sanctification." 03 

Strange statements these. Paul speaks of the "body of 
sin" being destroyed, not corrected. John speaks of cleans- 
ing, the blood of Jesus Christ being the efficient cause. 
We will quote a few passages according to Dr. Hunting- 
ton: "Let us correct ourselves from all filthiness of the 
flesh and spirit ;" "The blood of Jesus Christ corrects us 
from all sin ;" "Correct your hands, ye sinners ;" "That 
he might sanctify and correct the Church with the wash- 
ing of water ;" "Correct lepers ;" "Immediately his leprosy 
was corrected." Were we to read on we would do the 
same with the Scriptural terms, "destroy," "circumcise," 
"mortify," "crucify," etc. This is sufficient answer to his 
reasoning. Neither the original nor the English diction- 
ary give any sanction to such rendering of the word. 



63 P. 104. 



i74 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



When Bishop Foster, so frequently quoted by this 
author, settles down to experience he does not use the 
term corrected. He says : "Here again the Spirit seemed 
to lead me into the innermost sanctuary of my soul — into 
those chambers where I had before discovered such defile- 
ment, and showed me that all was cleansed, that the cor- 
ruptions which had given me such distress were dead — 
taken away — that not one of them remained. I felt the 
truth of the witness ; it was so. I was conscious of it ; as 
conscious as I had ever been of my conversion." 

Seeking to explain the lapses of those who profess to 
have inbred sin "destroyed," he says: "They shudder at 
the thought that they were deceived, and that their new 
experience was unreal. . . . They regarded as 'ex- 
terminated,' 'annihilated,' that -which admits of neither 
extermination nor annihilation, but only of constant and 
entire subjugation." 64 Here we are at last ; "filthiness of 
the spirit," "fear," "uncleanness," are only to be subju- 
gated. This is the experience we have received at regener- 
ation. Sin was subjugated at our conversion. Our sancti- 
fication is covered by Webster's definition. He says: 
"Sanctification" is "the act of sanctifying or making holy, 
or the state of being sanctified or made holy; the act of 
God's grace by which the affections of men are purified, 
or alienated from sin and the world, and exalted to a 
supreme love to God ; also the state of being thus purified 
or sanctified." Our object in quoting this standard au- 
thority is not to inform our readers that there is such a 



64 P. 121. 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



i75 



definition in the dictionaries, but that there is such an ex- 
perience as the dictionary defines. Dr. Huntington says 
not. His task is surely a great one, to prove to lexicog- 
raphers and authorities on the English language that their 
definitions of sanctification are distortions. That there is 
no cleansing or purification of the affectional nature ; that 
it simply means correction. 

There is not to be found in this book one word that 
honors the cleansing efficacy of Christ's blood, and I sup- 
pose this author will seek to change the song John heard 
in heaven to, Unto the Spirit which correcteth us from our 
sins in His own power, unto Him be glory. This theology 
would hush the song of heaven forever. How would this 
passage read revised according to this theology ? Having 
therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us correct 
ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfect- 
ing consecration in the fear of the Lord. Or, Knowing 
this that our old man is corrected with him, that the sensi- 
bilities might be subjugated. I calmly ask if a scholar 
in the world would consent to such a misuse of language ? 
Not only theology would need revising, but the entire lan- 
guage governing the thinking of the race and the teaching 
of trie centuries. We still ask Dr. Huntington to prove 
the statement that there is no purification in sanctification ; 
and when he has done so, against the scholarship of the 
world, then explain to us why his peers intellectually and 
spiritually, yea his superiors, have been mistaken as to 
the concept and the experience. His book furnishes con- 
stant proof that he never experienced purity of heart, but 



176 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



not a shadow of proof that there is no such thing. God 
is not dealing with disarrangement, but with wrongness ; 
not with weakness, but defilement. How this writer 
hopes to build up a greater system of truth upon lesser 
predicates and undemonstrated negations I fail to see. 
He insists that what some call inbred sin is not "extermi- 
nated" nor "annihilated." As he does not designate what 
is to be under "constant and entire subjugation," it is diffi- 
cult to deal with his writing. He says, "What this theory 
calls 'sin in believers' is really temptation." There is no 
recognition of abnormal propensities, principles, and ten- 
dencies. He says, "Every appetite, every passion, every 
power of emotion now in man, if properly directed and 
held in its place, would be holy and good." This sub- 
stantiates the fact that he holds to the theory of disarrange- 
ment, instead of defilement, and he logically dispenses 
with the whole process of cleansing. It is difficult to tell 
of what his depravity consists. 

Here is a bit of the great preacher and theologian's 
experience — Dr. Mark Hopkins. He had a brother-in- 
law, a lawyer and an infidel, who knew his great weakness, 
an ungovernable temper. Calling on him one evening to 
adjust some business, the brother-in-law set up some un- 
righteous claims on purpose to excite his anger. He suc- 
ceeded, and in a rage Dr. Hopkins left the house. 
"There !" said his infidel brother-in-law to his family, 
"you see now the truth of what I have told you, that Dr. 
Hopkins is at heart no better man than I am ; and now I 
have got my foot on his neck, and I will keep it there.'* 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



177 



Dr. Hopkins went to his closet, and spent the entire night 
in prayer to God. By morning a wonderful peace per- 
vaded his whole being. He returned to his brother-in-law, 
confessed with tears the sin he committed, and convinced 
his infidel brother-in-law that he had "another spirit." 
Thirty years after Dr. Hopkins said that since that mem- 
orable night no temptation or provocation had ever once 
stirred a motion of that evil temper within him. 

Will Dr. Huntington hold that the anger under severe 
provocation was willful in the sense of intended? Will 
he hold that the propensity to anger was innately holy, 
but out of place ? Something that only needed subjugation 
to measure up to his theory of sanctification ? Dr. Hop- 
kins says it never stirred, so consequently did not need 
subjugation. And this great religious authority calls it 
the destruction of the "body of sin." Whatever it was, 
it included more than Dr. Huntington's subjugation. 

Dr. Asa Mahan, an authority of no mean name, says : 
"As the cleansing process above described went on, I soon 
became conscious of a power in Christ, — the power of ab- 
solute control over all my propensities. ... In my 
former Christian life, under unexpected provocation, anger 
would arise, and I would 'speak unadvisedly with my lips.' 
In my new life, reflection, as I became joyfully conscious, 
always came in directly between myself and the provo- 
cation, and gave me a perfect mastery over it. At length 
the feeling of anger disappeared, and it became just as 
natural and easy to be quiet and patient as it had formerly 
been to be angry under provocation. The same held true 
12 



178 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



of my appetites. ... I now gratify my appetites as 
my better judgment dictates, and they do not, even inter- 
nally, rebel against the dominion to which they are sub- 
ject." "Thus our old man is crucified with Him, that the 
body of sin" (our evil propensities, tendencies, and habits) 
"might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve 
sin." "I hear instructions given to believers seeking this 
'rest of faith,' which I can not approve. They are told 
that Christ will not take away their evil propensities and 
prevent their acting within the mind, but will enable be- 
lievers to resist and hold in subjection such promptings. 
The apostle, on the other hand, tells us that, for the pur- 
pose that henceforth we should not serve sin, 'the old man 
is crucified with Christ,' and 'the body of sin is de- 
stroyed.' " 

When Paul said to the Colossians, "Ye are dead, and 
your life is hid with Christ in God," he meant more than 
that the body of sin was held in subjection. Subjection is 
not death. Regeneration controls the voluntary activities 
of the soul, and it does not commit sin ; but the old man 
of sin remains to war against the Spirit. Such is the ex- 
perience of the Church from the beginning. Regener- 
ation gives dominion over sin. Sanctification cleanses the 
evil from our nature. 

We do not contend that there is no rearrangement and 
renewal on the positive side of entire sanctification; but 
such do not need an atonement, nor the efficacy of Christ's 
blood. Will this author hold that circumcision and cor- 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



179 



rection, or rearrangement are synonymous? The argu- 
ment he uses himself holds here. The Bible says nothing 
about rearrangement; but it frequently holds that a cir- 
cumcised heart is essential to holiness, or perfect love. 

Another statement is : "God neither commands nor 
prohibits feeling." 65 This is too vague to be answered. 
He places the affections in the realm of necessity, and then 
goes ahead ignoring their relation to moral law. 

MISREPRESENTS REV. ASA MAHAN, IX. D. 

He quotes from President Asa Mahan to corroborate 
his attitude of denial of cleansing. Dr. Mahan says : 

"The Spirit sanctifies by presenting Christ to the mind in such 
a manner that we are transformed into His image. The common 
error of Christians, in respect to this subject, seems to be this — 
looking away from Christ to the Holy Spirit for sanctification, 
instead of looking for the Spirit to render Christ their sancti- 
fication." 

Of this, Dr. Huntington says : 

"The error to which President Mahan here alludes is one in 
which the theory before us logically leads. If sanctification be a 
work of the Holy Spirit, destroying or removing a passive exist- 
ence from the soul of the believer, then it is not His Presence, not 
the revelation of Christ which He brings to the soul, so much as 
it is an act or operation of His in one given moment." 66 

This seems to be a common practice with this writer ; 
namely, to quote from an author out of its relation to the 
theme discussed. We have shown how he did this with 
Mr. Wesley. We will now quote from President Mahan 



05 P. 121. 66 pp. I23 , 124. 



i8o METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



on Sanctification, to show this author misrepresents "the 

error" to which President Mahan alludes : 

"At length my mind and heart had, by the Spirit of God, 
been fully prepared to receive the revelation, 'in a moment, in the 
twinkling of an eye/ the great mistake of my previous Christian 
life, together with the secret of attaining to the full fruition of 
'the glorious liberty of the sons of God,' became perfectly manifest 
to me. When conscious of my need of justification, or the pardon 
of sin, I had sought the blessing by faith, as wholly a gift of 
grace. When conscious of my need of sanctification, I had re- 
garded it as an attainment to be reached through personal effort, 
aided by the Spirit of Grace. Here is a fundamental mistake in 
a matter of most vital interest. Sanctification is a gift of grace 
in the same sense, and attainable on the same condition, that 
justification is. Justification is an act of God. . . . Sanctifi- 
cation, on the other hand, is a work wrought by the Holy Spirit, 
a 'renewing of the Holy Ghost,' by which 'the body of sin is de- 
stroyed ;' that is, evil dispositions are taken out of the flesh, and 
we are made partakers of the divine nature. ... In illustra- 
tion, I cite the following promise. (Ezek. xxxvi, 25, 27.) Three 
great blessings, in all their fullness, are here specifically promised; 
namely, full and perfect cleansing from all sinful dispositions, 
tendencies, and habits ; an equally full and perfect renewal ; 'the 
gift of a new spirit,' and 'a heart of flesh' in the place of the heart 
of stone which 'had been taken out of the heart of flesh : and the 
'gift of the Holy Ghost.' "" "By the state under consideration 
(entire sanctification), I do not understand mere separation from 
actual sin, on the one hand, and full actual obedience on the other. 
I understand more than this by this state ; namely, a renewal of 
the spirit, and temper, and dispositions of the mind, and of the 
tendencies and habits which impel to sin and prompt to disobedi- 
ence to the Divine will." "Tens of thousands of eminent and most 
trustworthy believers testify to being as conscious of permanent 
changes and renewals of evil appetites, tempers, and dispositions 
of the longest standing and dominion, as they are of their own 
existence." "Facts of experience of the most palpable character, 
and of every variety of form, absolutely evince that in the renew- 
ing of the Holy Ghost believers are cleansed from indwelling sin, 



6" Autobiography, pp. 292, 293. 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



181 



as well as from actual sin." "No dogma can be more obviously 
unscriptural than that of the non-destruction of the body of sin 
in believers." 68 

I have given these lengthy quotations to show how 
President Mahan understood we were to look for "the 
Spirit to render Christ their sanctification," and to show 
that he is misrepresented. Dr. Mahan falls into "the 
(supposed) error" which the theory denied by Dr. Hunt- 
ington logically leads, and says sanctification is a work 
wrought in us by the Holy Spirit, destroying "the body 
of sin," and he positively calls Dr. Huntington's theory 
of "non-destruction of the body of sin" unscriptural. 

TEMPTATION. 

In treating on temptation, he falls into the snare his 
theory leads to. He says, "What this theory calls 'sin in 
believers' is really temptation." 69 If what has been called 
"sin in believers" is only temptation, there has been a 
world-wide, age-long discussion about little or nothing, 
and one of the most vital questions in theology remains 
unsettled. 

Where evil is not possible, temptation can not exist. 
No good object in itself becomes a source of temptation. 
Temptation may rise in beholding a good, but forbidden 
object. (Eve saw that "the tree was good for food.") 
Entertaining thoughts as to how the forbidden object may 
be secured becomes a source of temptation. Some desire 
is necessary ; but unnatural, impure, selfish desire is for- 
es Autobiography, pp. 344, 345. 09 sin and Holiness, p. 75. 



182 METHODIST THBOLOGY . 



bidden, and though these relate one to the temptation, they 
are not temptation ; they are more. The desire may be 
natural, while the method of securing its gratification is 
sinful, and the resistance weak because of depraved 
powers. 

A pure will has an inherent possibility to temptation 
in its liberty. A pure intellect has an inherent temptation 
in a possibility to think wrongness. A pure affection has 
an inherent possibility to temptation in its ability to bestow 
its power upon a forbidden object. Temptation may arise 
from the limitations that doubt creates, especially the 
temptation to require God to give us a sensible proof of 
His favor or nearness. For want of pureness of soul to 
discern certain fallacies temptations may arise, especially 
from the miscarriage of false beliefs. 

One of the most difficult problems is to discern what 
temptations have their source in ourselves, and what in 
Satan, the world, and other selves. Natural conditions 
may give Satan occasion to suggest a misuse of nature. 
When one is himself unnatural, it is difficult to discern 
how much temptation arises in himself. Purity detects 
Satan easily. A lawful object presents itself to the mind. 
Freedom implies the power to seek it, to secure it, to think 
of it, or use It in a forbidden way. If the object is wrong 
in itself, to think of it creates temptation of the intellect. 
If it is something right in itself, but capable of being 
perverted, the thinking of it is innocent. If it awakens 
desire, and that desire is lawful, but the object forbidden, 
temptation will arise from the lawful desire seeking its 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 183 



own, irrespective of present prohibition. In a pure nature 
the prohibition counteracts the desire, for a pure nature 
desires only the will of God. It may be a proper object 
of affection ; the prohibition may increase the desire, and 
thus temptation arise to seek the forbidden object. There 
is the temptation to seek unlawfully that which in itself 
is proper, and so violate the law of love. All these sug- 
gest possibilities to evil. We have temptation arising from 
an incomplete knowledge of God, man, and nature, and 
from a possible subordination of the greater to the lesser 
good. Natural appetites and passions may become a 
source of temptation in a desire to go beyond the lawful 
limit God has placed upon them. One may be tempted 
to use wrong means to secure good ends. Then there is 
direct Satanic assault, sometimes more intense than at 
others. Intense suffering for righteousness' sake will 
awaken a natural desire for relief, which may become a 
temptation to distrust God. Temptation may arise 
through a desire to possess good things (unlawfully with- 
held) because of our need. One may be tempted to use 
power upon an unworthy object or for an unworthy end. 
Frequently one is caused to think of those things which 
when contemplated awaken wrong feelings. All these, 
and many more things and conditions, may exist as sources 
of temptation that have nothing to do with inbred sin, 
and have not their root in unholy, sinful, depraved desires. 
One may pass through them all, and be as pure and 
stronger than before they began. There could be no 
sinful desires were there no innocent ones. That desire 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



is sinful which longs for a forbidden object after the 
conscience has revealed its true character, and the will has 
entered its protest against its fulfillment. 

There are desires, tendencies, propensities, which are 
not physical, that protest against reason, Divine law, and 
the authority of the will. They reveal the fact that the 
ego within and the object of evil without are in affinity. 
The will protests, but wavers ; the conscience reveals the 
true character of the temptation, but does not furnish 
sufficient feeling of protest to be distinctly heard. The 
intellect seeks out ways to evade the will of God and the 
inevitable consequences of disobedience at the same time. 
Theologies, volumes, characters are built upon these seri- 
ous truths. Deceitfulness is a phase of the old man of 
sin remaining in a believer ; that which is not sin is termed 
sin, and vice versa, as it suits the purpose of the person 
interested. One may have some difficulty in locating the 
relation of his thought, feelings, and conduct to law in his 
intellect; but no one can possess sinful desires, propen- 
sities, emotions, without tasting in his soul their moral 
character. To desire to think evil, to feel favorably 
toward it, before the will decides to embrace it, leaves con- 
scious defilement. In millions of believers this process 
awakens dormant uncleannesses, and "filthiness of spirit" 
that they hardly dreamed existed within them until solic- 
itated by objective temptation. 

There was something in Dr. Huntington's intelligent 
mind, no doubt something in his consciousness (or he was 
badly deceived), from which he sought deliverance on 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



those eventful occasions which laid the foundation for his 
book. Unfortunately for us all, he does not give us his 
case clearly in the concrete. He says he discovered its 
existence when he thought it was gone. What was it? 
Was it a natural appetite or passion needing lawful play 
or control, or was it a filthiness of the spirit? 

The great temptations with Christians are not with 
their appetites and passions. Regeneration brings those, 
with other things, into subjection. There are passions of 
the soul, filthy imaginations, fear of ourselves, fear of 
man, fear to trust God, with a new fear to disobey Him. 
Hunger for forbidden loves, and the play of old affections. 
Memories, blood-red, crowding in upon the reflective 
moments awaking old desires. Battles to be fought within 
when the outside world is calm, with myself — both the 
my and the me. Where there is not pureness there can 
not be clearness — a principle very far-reaching. Tempta- 
tion to the pure in heart has this characteristic ; its moral 
quality is quickly discerned. There is no benumbed moral 
faculty ; no unfeeling sense of wrong ; no fury of enflamed 
affections kindled by unholy desires ; no falling without 
meaning to. Paul understood all this. 

This author quotes St. James i, 14, as his authority for 
the order by which temptation exists, as all the advocates 
of his theory do. The word "lusts" is translated desire. 
It is not capable of such translation. It is temptation aris- 
ing from .^//-enticement. Christ was not drawn away by 
His own desires. He was tempted of the devil to choose 
a path of ease for self-sacrifice. Satan found nothing in 



1 86 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



him to respond to the seduction. No vanity, pride, or 
selfishness could be found to respond to his assaults. No 
inherent tendency toward any given evil. His soul, evenly 
poised, had no struggle with itself to gain consent to 
choose the will of God. The temptations of Christ were 
in the possibilities before him, and not in any inward dis- 
position, tendency, or abnormal desire. He did not even 
need the adjustment these theorists insist upon. 

No nature is so strongly tempted as a holy nature. 
The assault is more terrific, and the determination never 
to yield more strong than in the unsanctified nature. He 
easily yields, and has not so much to yield to. It takes 
genuine goodness to make agony of complete obedience to 
the whole will of God. 

SINFUL DISPOSITIONS. 

Sinful dispositions increase the liability to yield, and 
hence to commit sin, yet strange to say the pain of temp- 
tation in such is not as great as in those of pure dispo- 
sitions. As you diminish the goodness you diminish the 
temptation. Goodness presupposes antagonism to the evil, 
and increases the endeavor to maintain the antagonism. 

Men do not get so much sympathy from Christ who 
excuse their sinful dispositions and ignore His cleansing 
blood, as those who overcome by the blood of the 
Lamb and the word of their testimony. These are the 
souls who, other things being equal, make glorious char- 
acters. 

Yes, dear readers, the very experience slipped over by 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



187 



this author — freedom from unholy dispositions, desires, 
propensities, affections, etc., through the cleansing blood 
of the Lamb — is something more than victory over temp- 
tation. It is subjective purity bringing in another form 
of temptations than those which assault impure souls, and 
securing a more glorious victory. 

A pure affection is the home of the Spirit. Love is not 
reason quiescent. Love out of a pure heart is the free 
play of purified sensibilities possessed of their object. 

There is an end to unnatural desire. Crucifixion has 
been provided for that. All the tendrils of an impure love 
of the world, sense, and earthly things can be crucified ; 
and none is so free to distinguish between temptation and 
impurity as those who have detected "inbred sin" strug- 
gling against the work of the Spirit within, and who have 
sought and obtained cleansing from it. 

What we call inbred sin is not temptation, but some- 
thing in us, not us, which makes temptation an exceed- 
ingly hazardous thing. Evil tendencies are not essential 
to temptation. Being charged with living largely in the 
realm of the emotions, it is proper to say true holiness 
never fears sound exegesis. Its glory is its Scriptural - 
ness. Let us examine the passage Dr. Huntington uses 
to prove that temptation originates in desire, "Then when 
lust (desire) hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin." 

The Epistle of James was addressed to Jewish Chris- 
tians. They were exposed to a peculiar temptation — the 
persecution of the rich ; they were impatient under it — 
blamed God with their poverty as the source of their 



i88 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



temptation; they considered their low condition a dis- 
grace, and leaned toward the "friendship of the world." 
They had fallen into the practice of being partial to the 
rich when they came among them, and treated these 
brethren of "low degree" unkindly. James calls these 
so treated brethren; and condemns the rich so kindly 
treated. He shows them that the persecution came from 
the rich and those who encouraged them, that good things 
came from God ; but that the temptation came from them- 
selves — from inordinate desires, which produced in them 
donble-mindedness, causing doubtful conduct and feelings. 
Such are "unstable," having only a quasi-will disunited 
in themselves, an unsteady intention, so can not pray effect- 
ively. They have not earthly riches, and fail to secure a 
satisfying portion of the heavenly riches. They are com- 
manded to "cleanse your hands and purify your hearts." 
James says, "Ye lust, and have not." Have the true 
riches, and this temptation will disappear ; not the perse- 
cution, but this temptation from inordinate desires, awak- 
ened by disregard on account of their poverty. This is 
not the rich man's temptation. The poverty gave the 
occasion for the temptation ; the temptation arose in in- 
ordinate desires, desires which do not exist in a purified, 
wholly sanctified heart. An unsanctified heart would be 
tempted to blame God with this poverty, instead of his 
spirit within him. James is treating the source of their 
temptation, rather than the source of all temptation. He 
says their temptation is when they are drawn out and en- 
ticed by their own desires. EiriOvfXLa — epethumia — is not 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



189 



"innocent sensuousness," but lust for the forbidden action, 
as when a harlot entices man. Thus the exhortation, 
"Put away all filthiness." Make your companions of 
those who are rich in faith and in the wisdom which 
cometh from above. Dr. Huntington has no warrant to 
translate this word "desire" without qualification. Desire 
must exist for temptation to exist, but not "inordinate" 
desire; or as the word means, desire upon desire. It is 
this inordinate desire which sanctification removes, be- 
cause it removes its cause; namely, inbred sin. 

HIS CONVERTS ARE NOT SAVED FROM SINNING. 

The advocates of Dr. Huntington's theory always 

make allowance for their Christians to commit sin while 

remaining Christians. As with them, all sin is "a willful 

transgression of known law." Their Christians willfully 

sin. He says : 

"The fact that all sin is voluntary does not prove that all sin 
is deliberate and premeditated. It may be voluntary, and yet be 
a sudden departure of the will from its attitude of unqualified 
obedience under the power of temptation. In the believer this will 
be the case. Nor does the fact that it is voluntary imply that this 
sinful consent of the will is of long continuance. It may be a 
momentary yielding, followed by a quick return to Christ in peni- 
tence and faith. In believers this will very surely be the case." 
John, in i, 3, 9, "does not claim this voluntary sinlessness for all 
the children of God, but only for those who are so far advanced 
that they abide in Christ." 70 

This writer, with others, charges the advocates of holi- 
ness with minifying regeneration. Whatever blunders a 
few writers may make, the standard writers of the Church 



7° Sin and Holiness, pp. 90, 91. 



igo METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



from Wesley down make no such mistake; but not a 
writer against the Wesleyan teachings who does not do 
so, this writer among the rest. 

He says when defining sin it is "wrong intention," 
"relative to known obligation." "This ruling intention 
is "at any given moment" "either all right or all wrong," 
and that "He who obeys God does, for the time being, 
obey Him with all the heart." Then sin "deprives the 
soul of the indwelling Spirit of God." That "it is volun- 
tary consent of the will to that which is known to be con- 
trary to Divine law, under conditions in which opposite 
action is possible." All of which we teach concerning 
actual sin. 

WESLEY ON i JOHN in, 9. 

But when this writer meets a passage like 1 John iii, 9, 
which can not admit of sin being committed by believers, 
he writes as in the quotation from pages 90, 91. Wesley 
does not so hold. He says : 

"An immediate and constant fruit of this faith whereby we 
are born of God, a fruit which in no wise can be separated from it, 
no, not for one hour, is power over sin — power over every out- 
ward sin of every kind ; every evil word and work. 'Whosoever 
is born of God doth not commit sin ; and he can not commit sin 
because he is born of God. (1 John iii, 9.) But some men will 
say : 'True ; whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin 
habitually.' Habitually! Whence is this? I read it not. It is 
not written in the Book. God plainly saith, 'He doth not commit 
sin,' and thou • addest habitually! Who art thou that mendest 
the oracles of God? . . . 'Little children, let no man deceive 
you ! for many will endeavor to do so, to persuade you that you 
may commit sin, and yet be the children of God. . , . 'We 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



191 



know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not' ... as long 
as this 'seed remaineth in him, he can not sin.' " 71 

How can sin be "a voluntary consent of the will to 
that which is known to be contrary to Divine law," and 
not be deliberate or premeditated? How can one be in 
the attitude of a believer, and consent to sin at the same 
time? The principle of obedience to known law must be 
surrendered before one can consent to disobey it. 

THE AUTHOR ON THE NEW BIRTH. 

When Dr. Huntington wants to place the New Birth 
as high as possible, he quotes the following from Mr. 
Wesley : "If we are not free from sin, we are not Chris- 
tian believers." 72 "That a newly- justified person has at 
once, in that hour, power over all sin." But when he 
wants to save his theory, he says that the regenerate are 
"children tossed to and fro," and that, under temptation, 
they, for a time at least, "commit more or less sin." 73 He 
does not claim this voluntary sinlessness for all the chil- 
dren of God, but only for those who are so far advanced 
that they "abide in Christ." 74 

MINIFIES REGENERATION. 
I wonder who minifies regeneration? How muddled 
the whole matter, and how he contradicts himself as his 
argument may require ! Which statements are we to be- 
lieve? His quotations from Mr. Wesley, or his own? — 
for they contradict one another. He says, referring to 

71 Sermons, Vol. I, pp. 155-164. 

72 Sin and Holiness, p. 140. 73 ibid., p. 160. 7 * Ibid., p. 90. 



192 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



1 John hi, 8 : "He is refuting the error of those who 
claim that the practice of sin is not inconsistent with 
Christian piety. By committing sin he does not refer to 
the sinful wavering of weak believers, but to a state of 
heart which allows and justifies the practice of sin, and 
yet assumes the Christian name." 75 I wonder how much 
sin a man can commit and be a Christian? If John's 
statement "doth not" is not true, where shall we place 
the limit ? Dr. Huntington gives us the indefinite amount 
of "more or less." Who shall say when there is too much 
sin to call a man a Christian believer? To what straits 
these theorists put themselves. What are "sinful waver- 
ings?" Of course they are voluntary and intentional, or 
they could not be sinful, according to this author. How 
much sinful wavering is consistent with a true faith in 
Christ? This author turns his sophistry upon the "can 
not sin" of verse 9. He says, "The can not here affirms 
only that those who allow and practice known sin can 
not possess spiritual life." Exactly, so we believe. Is not 
an intentional act allowing sin, and can one voluntarily sin 
and not practice it? We hold with this author that the 
"can not" is so while the spiritual life bestowed by faith 
remains. Can a man be a Christian believer, and "not 
possess spiritual life?" Or does this author hold that one 
may "sin more or less," and have spiritual life? This is 
the Calvinism our fathers successfully overthrew. 

There is sophistry in the reasoning found in this sen- 
tence : "If regeneration is the repression of 'indwelling 

75 Sin and Holiness, p. 92. 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



193 



sin,' then entire sanctification must be entire repression ; 
that is, continued uninterrupted power over sin." 76 Re- 
generation gives power over sin. Sanctification is more 
than a larger degree of regeneration. If not, it would 
be entire regeneration. Sanctification contains the ele- 
ment of cleansing; this is not included in regeneration. 
The strongest thing Mr. Wesley said on this was, "His 
heart is cleansed in a low degree." He meant from actual 
sins, so that sin does not have dominion over him. 

WESLEY ON TIME AND METHOD. 

He quotes Telford's "Life of Wesley," a recent writer, 
as saying, "Wesley fixed no time and prescribed no meth- 
ods for this work." He indorses this quotation. Let 
us see. 

"Accordingly, we see, in fact, that some of the most unques- 
tionable witnesses of sanctifying grace were sanctified within a 
few days after they were justified. O, why do we not encourage 
all to expect this blessing every hour from the moment they are 
justified?" 77 

"I have been thinking a good deal on one point, wherein, 
perhaps, we have been wanting. We have not made it a rule, as 
soon as ever persons are justified, to remind them to go on to per- 
fection, WHEREAS THIS IS THE TIME PREFERABEE TO AEE OTHERS." 

"Exactly as we are justified by faith, so we are sanctified by 
faith." 73 

"(1) That it is received merely by faith; (2) That it is given 
instantaneously." 79 

These quotations are enough to disprove this state- 
ment of these writers. 



76 Sin and Holiness, p. 137. 
78 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 338. 

13 



77 Wesley's Works, Vol. IV, p. 451. 
79 Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 500. 



i94 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



DEFINITIONS OF HOLINESS. 

We will now examine his definitions of holiness, which 
he says is synonymous with entire sanctification and Chris- 
tian perfection. He says : 

" 'Holiness' is distinguished from an act of consecration by- 
its continuousness." "It consists in an abiding state of the will." 80 
It is "a supreme preference for God," "a state in which the be- 
liever does not commit sin." sl "A state of entire consecration is 
loving God with all the heart."" "It is a state of unreserved con- 
secration to the glory of God and the good of man ; and this is 
holiness." S3 "Entire and continuous consecration, then, is entire 
obedience to God's law as it is apprehended ; and this is holiness 
of heart and Iife." S4 "The holy, perfect love of God to man is a 
voluntary but permanent state of the Divine will." 85 "God conse- 
crates Himself to the highest well-being of His creatures." SG 

These statements cover his definition of holiness. 
Something we do; not something we are. Continuous 
consecration ; a state of the will, preference ; do not com- 
mit sin ; entire obedience. Even in God it is a permanent 
state of the will. God consecrates Himself to the highest 
well-being of His creatures ; that is holiness. Verily, this 
active, non-subjective holiness is new in Scripture, Meth- 
odism, and in the religious world. It has this peculiarity : 
it was never so defined until this author defined it. Ex- 
perimentally he can find no companionship in the past, 
whatever fellowship may center around him in the future. 
This conception of holiness is not Jewish, nor the teach- 
ings of the Church fathers, nor of the mediaeval Church 
Schoolmen; nor yet is it Calvinism or Arminianism, 



80 Sin and Holiness, p. 152. 81 ibid., p. 153. 82 ibid., p. 164. 

ibid., p. 167. w /*«/., p. 16S, W p. 170. p. 169. 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



i95 



Lutheran or Anglican, nor is it Wesleyan, as we have 
shown. This unique author has discovered something 
never taught before concerning holiness and entire sanc- 
tification. 

He says, "Holiness is continuous consecration." He 
does not say how long the consecration is to continue 
before it becomes holiness. If there is any break in the 
continuousness there is no holiness. There is an entire 
consecration, then, which has breaks in it — the common 
experience of the most holy men. If he means continu- 
ous consecration from the moment of conversion until 
glory is reached, I do not know of any witnesses to holi- 
ness, with the possible exception of Paul. Such an in- 
definite point can not be answered. 

Holiness is "an abiding state of the will." Again we 
raise the question : How long must the will abide in this 
state, and what state is the will in which must so abide? 
The will abides in a rebellious state for years. Many 
have been conscious of an unchanged state of will toward 
God, who have never been away from the consciousness 
of the abiding "filthiness of flesh and spirit," against which 
they have maintained an unchanging attitude of the will, 
and continued justified before God. Is that "abiding state 
of the will" holiness ? After this abiding state of the will 
covering many years, they profess to have sought and 
obtained holiness, which secured to them another state 
of the will different from before, but it runs on continu- 
ously. He calls holiness "a supreme preference for God." 
Preference may exist without supreme affection, as an 



196' METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



act of the intellect and will. He calls it "a state in which 
the believer does not commit sin;" but does not tell us 
when this state begins, nor when it is reached. The Scrip- 
ture saith, "Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin." 
(i John iii, 9.) So every one born of God has holiness 
and entire sanctification. He describes "a state of entire 
consecration" as "loving God with all the heart." Here 
is a condition taking the place of the state of the affec- 
tions it is a prerequisite to secure. Writing on conversion, 
this same author says, "He who obeys God does, for the 
time being, obey Him with all the heart ;" therefore, he 
is in "a state of entire consecration ;" therefore, he is in 
a state of holiness. Such is the inevitable logic of these 
definitions of holiness. 

He writes of "love considered as a voluntary act." 
What is that? Love is a state of the affections. Love is 
not volitional. Does Dr. Huntington mean that love is a 
product of the will, or that the will can produce it at 
pleasure? Where do we find the will producing love? 
Love is of God. Love is as much a faculty of the soul as 
will. An awakened affection is necessary to graciously 
move a will. God changes the will by the power of a new 
affection ; but does not bestow the affection without the 
consent of the will. The will co-operates with, but does 
not create love. Again, he says, "Love is the consecration 
of ourselves to the highest good of men." Does he mean 
that when there is no consecration to the highest good of 
men there is no love ? That a man who loves will conse- 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



i97 



crate himself to the highest good of men there is no 
doubt ; but he will do more. Consecration to the highest 
good of men results from love ; but it is not love, it is its 
effect. Love is not the consecration, but the spirit which 
awakens the entire being to devote itself sacrificially to 
the betterment of the race. According to this theory, any 
man not entirely and continuously consecrated to the good 
of men has no love. All this to dispense with the qualify- 
ing adjective "perfect." 

He makes holiness "entire obedience to God's law as 
it is apprehended." Then every convert has holiness, for 
this is the lowest standard of obedience in the Word of 
God, and every believer keeps this standard. But really 
this author does not mean all this. He says : "Rightly 
viewed, there is no 'if in the case. There is no sanctifi- 
cation for a moment apart from Christ, no matter what 
blessings may have at any previous time been received." 
What a turn from voluntary conditions to a subjective 
indwelling Christ ! Nearer the truth it is true, for sancti- 
fication is entire consecration and entire cleansing that 
Christ might dwell in our hearts. But why the change 
from a voluntary to a passive condition ? Why ignore his 
own "its?" 

As we intend giving a positive statement before we 
close concerning Scriptural holiness, we will leave these 
definitions with the reader at present, and proceed to treat 
the theme, 



i 9 8 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



"WESLEY ON WHAT HOLINESS IS." 

If I were to take Dr. Huntington's writings and, ig- 
noring the most of them, pick out a few sentences here 
and there suited to my purpose, and throw them together 
to prove they accorded with my view, I would feel that 
I had wronged my readers, Mr. Huntington, and espe- 
cially myself. Such is his treatment of Mr. Wesley, as 
I proved before and will now. Why should he be afraid 
of Mr. Wesley's use of the words "cleansing," "purify- 
ing," "filthiness of the flesh and spirit," "inward sin?" 
He desires his readers to believe that he only taught for 
entire sanctincation "purity of intention." 

On page 178 he mentions Mr. Wesley reading Tay- 
lor's "Rules and Exercises of Holy Living and Dying," 
and his being affected by that part which "relates to purity 
of intention." A year or two later he read Kempis and 
Law. Now he selects quotations on purity of intention 
and entire consecration as representing what Mr. Wesley 
taught, ignoring the following. A year or two later "I 
saw that 'simplicity of intention and purity of affection,' 
one design in all we speak or do, . . . are indeed the 
wings of the soul," etc. This author says that when in 
1733 Wesley preached his sermon on "The Circumcision 
of the Heart," "not a word in it teaches that holiness is 
either the destruction or removal of 'inbred sin.' " 87 This 
we concede if the word inbred sin must be found in the 
sermon. But what Mr. Wesley taught as inbred sin is 
found frequently there. He says: "It is that habitual 



87 P. 180. 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



199 



disposition of the soul which, in sacred writings, is termed 
holiness ; and which directly implies the being cleansed 
from all sin ; from all filthiness both of flesh and spirit," 
etc. "It is his daily care by the grace of God in Christ, 
through the blood of the covenant, to purge the inmost 
recesses of his soul from the lusts that before possessed 
and defiled it, from uncleanness, and envy, and malice, 
and wrath ; from every passion and temper that is after 
the flesh, that either springs from or cherishes his native 
corruption," "and thereby in a good measure cleansed 
thy heart from its inbred corruption. If thou wilt be per- 
fect add to these charity, and thou hast the circumcision 
of the heart." One has as much right to say after read- 
ing this, that Mr. Wesley did not teach "purity of inten- 
tion" and entire consecration, as Dr. Huntington has to 
say he did not teach the destruction of inbred sin. He 
speaks again : "Unless he is deeply convinced of that in- 
bred 'corruption of his nature' " "Cleanse your hands, 
ye sinners, and purify your hearts, ye double-minded." 
"Love, cutting off both the lust of the flesh, the lust of 
the eye, and the pride of life." "Here, then, is the sum of 
the perfect law ; this is the circumcision of the heart. Let 
the spirit return to God that gave it with the whole train 
of its affections." 88 

Where in his definition of holiness would this author 
place such sayings ? Is not "inbred corruption of nature," 
what Mr. Wesley taught was inbred sin ? Such terms as 
"inbred corruption," "the being cleansed from all filthi- 

88 Wesley's Works, Vol. I, pp. 147-153. 



2oo METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



ness of both flesh and spirit," "native corruption," "inbred 
pollution," do not come under the head of consecration 
or "purity of intention." 

On page 181 reference is made to Mr. Wesley's ser- 
mon on "Sin in believers." This author says that "sin in 
believers is the sin of believers." Mr. Wesley did not 
think so. He says : "I retired to Lewisham, and wrote 
the sermon on 'Sin in Believers' in order to remove a 
mistake which some were laboring to propagate — that 
there was no sin in any that are justified." 89 After open- 
ing that sermon he indorses the position of the Church 
on Original Sin. He quotes Galatians v, 17, and says: 
"The apostle here directly affirms that the flesh, evil na- 
ture, opposes the Spirit even in believers; that even in 
the regenerate there are two principles, contrary the one 
to the other." "I can not, therefore, by any means re- 
ceive this assertion that there is no sin in believers ; first, 
because it is contrary to the whole tenor of the Scrip- 
tures ; secondly, because it is contrary to the experience 
of the children of God; thirdly, because it is absolutely 
new, never heard of in the world till yesterday ; and lastly, 
because it is naturally attended with the most fatal conse- 
quences." He answers in this sermon the plea, "If he 
is holy at all, he is holy altogether/' as follows : "That 
does not follow. Every babe in Christ is holy, and yet not 
altogether so. He is saved from sin, yet not entirely ; 
it remains, though it does not reign. If you think it does 
not remain, . . . you certainly have not considered the 

89 Works, Vol. IV, p. 147. 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



20I 



height, and depth, and length, and breadth of the law of 
God, and that every ( avo^ta ) disconformity to or devi- 
ation from this law is sin." "A man may be in God's 
favor though he feel sin, but not if he yields to it." 

WESLEY ON PERFECTION. 

On page 182 Mr. Wesley is quoted as saying in his 
revision of his "Plain Account of Christian Perfection:" 
"In one view it is purity of intention dedicating all the life 
to God," etc. Why does Dr. Huntington omit the other 
view, namely, "It is the circumcision of the heart from all 
filthiness, all inward as well as outward pollution?" 90 Is 
circumcision of the heart from all filthiness nothing more 
than "purity of intention dedicating all the life to God?" 
Can this author tell us how much dedicating would re- 
move this filthiness ? 

On page 187 Dr. Huntington quotes Mr. Wesley as 
saying in his description of one who is Scripturally per- 
fect, "One in whom is no occasion of stumbling, and who 
accordingly doth not commit sin." 91 The whole para- 
graph reads : "We mean one in whom 'is the mind which 
was in Christ,' and who so 'walketh as Christ walked,' a 
man that hath 'clean hands and a pure heart,' or that is 
'cleansed from all filthiness of flesh and spirit;' one in 
whom is no occasion," etc. 

In the quotation on the same page, beginning in 
italics (the italics put there by this author), "In other 
words," it ends thus : "Whether you are a Protestant or a 

Q o Plain Account, p. 8. 91 Works, Vol. V, p. 257. 



46* METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



Papist, neither you nor he can ever enter into glory, 
unless you are now cleansed from all pollution of flesh 
and spirit, and perfect holiness in the fear of God." 92 

On page 190 this author divides the paragraph he 
quotes from, almost divides one of the sentences, and 
says of those "who are sanctified throughout, that they 
continually presented their souls and bodies a living sac- 
rifice. . . . And this in no other is what we believe 
to be true Scriptural sanctification." Let us read the 
entire paragraph : "And first, we have known a large 
number of persons, of every age and sex, from early 
childhood to extreme old age, who have given all the 
proofs, which the nature of the thing admits, that they 
were sanctified throughout, 'cleansed from all pollution 
both of flesh and spirit,' that they loved 'the Lord their 
God with all their heart, mind, and soul, and strength, 
'that they continually,' etc." 93 

Why cut this paragraph in two thus? Can any one 
read the entire paragraph, and not see that the sentence 
this author selects does not include an important and 
essential part of Scriptural sanctification taught by Mr. 
Wesley ? Why does he so carefully avoid in almost every 
quotation used by him Mr. Wesley's references to "pollu- 
tion," "cleansing," etc.? There can be only one answer. 

A quotation on page 191, ending with "Hold fast the 
beginning of your confidence steadfast to the end," cre- 
ates the idea that this is all Mr. Wesley means. Prob- 
ably considering the danger of such an interpretation, 

92 Works, Vol. VII, p. 224. ^Ibid., Vol. II, p. 247. 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



he adds in the same paragraph, "However, you are right 
in looking for a further instantaneous change, as well as 
a constant gradual one." 94 In the face of these completed 
sentences and statements of Mr. Wesley it is useless to 
follow or answer the argument based upon such glaring 
misrepresentation. He also 

MISREPRESENTS MR. FLETCHER. 

As he has partially quoted Mr. Wesley and put him 
in an unfair light, so he selects statements from Mr. 
Fletcher's "Checks," where he refers to the relation of the 
will to Christian perfection, and then says : 

"It will not be denied that the ablest expounder and defender 
of Wesleyan teaching among the early Methodists was Fletcher 
of Madeley. What, then, did he understand Wesley to teach on 
this subject? 'The one power, then, that I see can be perfected 
here, because it is altogether independent of the body, is the will 
and, of course, the affections so far as they work on the will.' 
If, then, Fletcher understood Wesley and Wesley understood 
Fletcher, the perfection taught by Wesley, however expressed, 
consisted in a state of the will. It was the very same thing which 
Fletcher had expressed as a sanctified state of the will." 

The quotations are given to substantiate this position, 
and they exclude those statements referring to the purifi- 
cation of the affectional life; the cleansing of the nature 
from inbred sin, by the blood of Jesus ; its instantaneous- 
ness by faith, etc., leaving the reader to think that this 
alone was Mr. Fletcher's view, and then he builds his 
argument upon this half-truth. This is true that sancti- 
fication produces a state of the will as well as a state of 



94 Works, Vol. VI, p. 718. 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



the heart, but it is not true that Christian perfection alone 

includes a state of perfect obedience of the will, and does 

not include a perfect affectional nature. Referring to 

Mr. Wesley, Mr. Fletcher says: 

"Not satisfied to preach holiness begun, he preaches holiness 
finished, and calls believers to such a. degree of heart-purifying 
faith as may enable them to triumph in Christ as 'being made to 
them of God sanctification as well as righteousness.' It is, I 
grant, his misfortune (if indeed it be one) to preach a fuller 
salvation that most professors expect to enjoy here; for he asserts 
that Jesus can 'make clean' the inside as well as the outside of 
His vessels unto honor, . . . and that His 'blood cleanseth 
us from all sin,' from the filthiness and defilement and guilt both 
of actual and original corruption. He is bold enough to declare 
with St. John, that 'if we say we have no sin (either by nature or 
practice) we deceive ourselves.' He is legal enough not to be 
ashamed of these words of Moses, 'The Lord thy God will circum- 
cise thine heart,' etc., and he dares to believe that the Lord can 
perform the words which He spoke by Ezekiel : 'I will sprinkle 
clean water upon you, and you shall be clean ; from all your 
filthiness and from all your idols I will cleanse you.' " "He fre- 
quently expressed his detestation of the errors of modern Phari- 
sees, who laugh at original sin. He tells them that 'he who 
committeth sin is the servant of sin ;' that 'our old man is cruci- 
fied with Christ, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that 
henceforth we should not serve sin." "But I must (for one) 
do him the justice to say he is misapprehended, and that what he 
calls perfection is nothing but the rich cluster of all the spiritual 
blessings promised to believers in the Gospel, and among the rest 
a continual sense of the virtue of Christ's atoning and purifying 
blood." 95 

This is enough without any argument to convince the 
reader that Mr. Fletcher is misrepesented in the use made 
of the quotations from his writings. The quotations given 
were taken from his statement concerning what Mr. Wes- 



95 Cheeks, Vol. I, pp. 12-14. 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



205 



ley taught. "Heart-purifying faith," cleansing the "in- 
side as well as the outside," Christ's blood cleansing from 
"the guilt and defilement both of actual and original cor- 
ruption," from "sin either by nature or practice," cleans- 
ing from "AUy filthiness," detesting those errors which 
lead men to laugh at "original sin," "a continual virtue" 
of "Christ's atoning and purifying blood." These and 
many other statements of Mr. Wesley, confirmed by Mr. 
Fletcher, are not believed by Dr. Huntington, and he ut- 
terly fails to prove that either Mr. Wesley or Mr. Fletcher 
accords with his entirely new theory of sin and holiness. 
Had Dr. Huntington continued to quote from Mr. 
Fletcher, among the many things he could have quoted 
is the following from his clear pen: 

"Our Church ... is not against Christian perfection. 
. . . In the communion service, 'Cleanse the thoughts of our 
hearts by the inspiration of Thy Holy Spirit, that we may per- 
fectly love Thee and worthily magnify Thy holy name through 
Jesus Christ our Lord.' Here we see (1) The nature of Christian 
perfection — it is perfect love ; (2) The seat of this perfect love — 
'a heart cleansed from its own thoughts'" "Perfect love; i. e., 
Christian perfection, instantaneously springs from perfect faith." 
"Perfect Christians need as much the virtue of Christ's blood to 
prevent the guilt and pollution of sin from returning, as imperfect 
Christians want it to drive that guilt and pollution away." "If 
our hearts be purified by faith, as the Scriptures expressly testify ; 
if the faith which peculiarly purified the heart of Christians be a 
faith in 'the promise of the Father,' which promise was made by 
the Son, and directly points to a peculiar effusion of the Holy 
Spirit, the purifier of spirits ; if we may believe in a moment ; and 
if God may in a moment seal our sanctifying faith by sending us 
a fullness of His sanctifying Spirit ; if this. I say, be the case, 
does it not follow that to deny the possibility of the instantaneous 
destruction of sin is to deny, contrary to Scripture, and matter 



2o6 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



of fact, that we can make an instantaneous act of faith in the 
sanctifying promise of the Father, and in the all-cleansing blood 
of the Son, and that God can seal that act by the instantaneous 
operation of His Spirit." 

Could anything be clearer? Mr. Wesley and Mr. 
Fletcher agreed on the very things Dr. Huntington de- 
nies, and for him to take a part of their sayings to the 
exclusion of the rest, and try and use them to prove his 
untenable and unscriptural position, is so false a method 
of reasoning to be unworthy anything more than an ex- 
posure. Had he carefully examined the sentence, "Chris- 
tian perfection extends chiefly to the will, which is the 
capital moral power of the soul," he would have seen what 
Mr. Fletcher advocated, that the power which "work on 
the will" is the affections, and that in their manifestations 
their activity "extends chiefly" to the will. Dr. Hunting- 
ton reverses this theory, and centers everything in the 
will, from which "extend chiefly" movements upon the 
affectional life, a radically false philosophy and psy- 
chology. 

I am frequently reminded of a statement of Mr. Wes- 
ley, "It is probable, at least, that I understand my own 
meaning as well as you do." 96 

To select statements from Mr. Wesley and Mr. 
Fletcher thus, is to confess that transparency is unfavor- 
able to this author's position. Had he taken these writers 
and attempted to show where they were wrong, and to 
disprove their real position, we would have given him 



lJ6 Arminian Magazine, Vol. VI, p. 563. 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



207 



credit for a higher purpose in his selection than his course 
warrants. 

Mr. Fletcher is not represented as to his teaching on 
Christian perfection. Here is one of his definitions: 
"Christian perfection is nothing but the depth of evan- 
gelical repentance, the full assurance of faith, the pure 
love of God and man shed abroad in a faithful believer's 
heart, by the Holy Ghost given unto him, to cleanse him 
and to keep him clean from all Pithiness of the flesh and 
spirit; and to enable him to fulfill the law of Christ ac- 
cording to the talents he is intrusted with, and the circum- 
stances in which he is placed in this world." 97 "I have 
already pointed out the close connection there is between 
an act of faith which fully apprehends the sanctifying 
promise of the Father, and the power of the Spirit of 
Christ, which makes an end of moral corruption by forc- 
ing the lingering man of sin instantaneously to breathe 
out his last." 9s "I do not rest the doctrine of Christian 
perfection on the absence of sin — that is, the perfection 
of a dove or a lamb ; nor on the loving God with all one's 
power, for I believe all perfect Gentiles and Jews have 
done so; but on the fullness of that superior, nobler, 
warmer, and more powerful love, which the apostle calls 
the love of the Spirit, or the love of God shed abroad by 
the Holy Ghost, given to the Christian believers, who, 
since the day of Pentecost, go on to the perfection of the 
Christian dispensation." 99 "If an adult believer yields to 



97 Wesley's Designated Successor, p. 323, 08 Ibid,, p. 324. 
^Ibtd., p. 411, 



2o8 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



temptation, and falls into sin as our first parents did, is it 
a proof that he never was cleansed from inbred sin?" 

This is enough. Wesley and Fletcher were one in doc- 
trine. Fletcher was Wesley's defender. Dr. Huntington 
does not believe either. 

He is perplexed over the "can not sin" of I John iii, 9, 
and says : 

"The verse quoted not only states that those who are born 
of God do not commit sin ; it as explicitly declares that they can 
not sin. How are we to understand this ? . . . The apostle plainly 
implies that young Christians may, and do, commit more or less 
sin. . . . He assumes that they will sometimes sin ; and lest 
they should cast away their confidence, he points them to One 
who is the propitiation for our sins, and an Advocate with the 
Father." 100 

A proper exegesis makes this clear. The apostle gives 
his reason for the ''can not," because his seed (Divine 
life) remaineth in him. This must be consciously for- 
feited by a willful choice between God and sin, and such 
a choice kills the Divine life and makes one a child of the 
devil. John explicitly states this : "He that committeth 
sin is of the devil." Again we ask, How much may this 
young Christian sin and remain a Christian? Who shall 
put the limit, and where shall it end? This is the writer 
who charges holiness teachers with minifying regener- 
ation to make room for their sanctification. Alas ! alas ! 
Not a Methodist theologian, recognized as a standard in 
the Church, ever left such an open door for "the trans- 
gression of known law" for young Christians. 



100 sin and Holiness, pp. 215, 216, 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



Again he makes a discovery contrary to his theory. 
He says: 

"Genuine converts are generally more deeply convicted of sin 
after their conversion than they were before. In their new light 
they trace the claims of God's law more fully to their inner life. 
No doubt, young converts feel the need of a deeper work of 
grace in their hearts. Heaven pity that misguided convert who 
feels that need but once. Under the searchings of the Spirit 
they see that their hearts still sin, and they are humbled in self- 
abasement, and led out in wrestling prayer." 101 

Passing strange ! "They see that their hearts still sin." 
This is a new turn for this author. Where is the action 
of the will here ? To be consistent, he should say they see 
that their wills still sin. Mark you, this is discovery under 
the searchings of the Spirit. It is not the transgression 
of known law, and does not come under his definition of 
sin. That converts should feel their past more keenly 
after their salvation than before, is not strange. But to 
awaken to the discovery that their affections sin, and this 
discovery causes self-abasement and prayer, is exactly 
what the advocates of inbred sin hold. Sin, as Dr. Hunt- 
ington defines it, produces guilt and condemnation, which 
is vastly different from self-abasement and prayer. This 
is the very discovery the advocates of inbred sin teach ; 
viz., a state of the affections that under the searching light 
of the Spirit reveals sin. 

Again, he says, "His heart sometimes wavers from 
entire consecration." 102 That is, the affectional life pro- 
tests against compliance with the demands of entire con- 



101 Sin and Holiness, p. 230. 
14 



iwi&id., p. 231. 



2io METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



secration. This is true. Where is the volition? The 
protest comes from the affections, and not the will. 

THE WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT TO OUR CLEANSING. 

Upon this disputed question we refer our readers to 
page 174, where Bishop Foster relates his experience. 
Many more witnesses could be added. Let us change 
this method of reasoning. Let us admit the terminology 
is wrong ; that the terms, "inbred sin," "original sin," 
"depravity," "disarrangement," etc., are not in the Bible, 
and should not be used in defense of Scriptural holiness. 
We have these terms there, and they are utterly unpro- 
vided for in this book, "flesh," "the body of sin," "the 
flesh with the affections and lusts," "the old man," "filthi- 
ness of the flesh and spirit," "circumcision of the heart," 
"the body of the flesh," "the blood of Jesus Christ His 
Son cleanseth us from all sin." None of these terms can 
be treated intelligently from the standpoint of volition, 
consequently he ignores them. Every leading scholar and 
theologian in every Church in the world holds that these 
terms do not relate to the transgression of known law, 
and Dr. Huntington is too intelligent not to know it. He 
assumes a good deal to undertake to overthrow the teach- 
ings of the Church from the beginning on this question. 
Wesley's term "leprosy" is not something to be regulated, 
but exterminated. 

This author has a chapter on 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



211 



"SOME ITEMS OF HISTORY," 

in which he seeks to prove that Mr. Wesley looked upon 
the doctrine of the removal of the "roots of sin" as a 
fanaticism. This is surely mixing history. Let us see. 

"Thus you experience that He whose name is called Jesus 
does not bear that name in vain ; that He does, in fact, 'save His 
people from their sins,' the root* as well as the branches." 103 

"From what has been said, we may easily learn the mis- 
chievousness of that opinion, that we are wholly sanctified when 
we are justified; that our hearts are then cleansed from all sin. 
It is true, we are then delivered, as was observed before, from 
the dominion of outward sin ; and at the same time the power 
of inward sin is so broken, that we need no longer follow or be 
led by it ; but it is by no means true that inward sin is then totally 
destroyed; that the root of pride, self-will, anger, love of the 
world, is then taken out of the heart, or that the carnal mind and 
the heart bent to backsliding are entirely extirpated." 104 

"Hence may appear the extreme mischievousness of that 
seemingly innocent opinion, that there is no sin in a believer ; that 
all sin is destroyed, root and branch, the moment a man is jus- 
tified." 105 

"Only let it be remembered that the heart of even a believer 
is not wholly purified when he is justified. Sin is then overcome, 
but it is not rooted out ; it is conquered, but not destroyed. Ex- 
perience shows him, first, that the root of sin, self-will, pride," 
etc." 106 

"By justification we are saved from the guilt of sin, and re- 
stored to the favor of God ; by sanctification we are saved from 
the power and root of sin, and restored to the image of God. All 
experience, as well as Scripture, shows this salvation to be both 
instantaneous and gradual." 107 

"By all the grace which is given at justification we can not 
extirpate them. Though we watch and pray ever so much, we 
can not wholly cleanse either our hearts or hands. Most sure we 

* I have italicized the word root for emphasis. 
103 works, Vol. II, p. 170. ^Ibid., Vol. I, p. 124. 
™Ibid., Vol. I, p. 390. ™Ibid., vol. II, p. 476. 

™ Ibid., Vol. II, p. 236. 



2i2 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



can not till it please our Lord to speak to our hearts again, to 
speak the second time, Be clean; and then only the leprosy is 
cleansed. Then only the evil root, the carnal mind, is destroyed, 
and inbred sin subsists no more. But if there be no such change, 
if there be no instantaneous deliverance after justification, if 
there be none but a gradual work of God, then we must be con- 
tent, as well as we can, to remain full of sin until death." 103 

"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, . . . and thou shalt be 
saved, first from the guilt of sin, . . . then from the power, 
which shall have no more dominion over thee; and then from the 
root of it into the whole image of God." 109 

"I met again with those who believe God has delivered them 
from the root of bitterness. Their number increases daily. 

"Certainly, before the root of sin is taken away, believers may 
live above the power of it." 110 

" Come, Thou dear I,amb, for sinners slain, 

Bring- in the cleansing- flood : 
Apply, to wash out every stain, 

Thine efficacious blood. 
O let it sink into our soul, 

Deep as the imbred sin 
Make every wounded spirit whole, 

And every leper clean ! ' ' 

These quotations are enough to show that Mr. Wesley 
himself taught the instantaneous removal of the root 
of sin. 

Of course, Dr. Huntington's historic statement being 
false, there is no use answering the argument based upon 
it. Writing to his brother Charles in 1766, he said: "In- 
sist everywhere on full redemption received now by faith 
alone. . . . Press the instantaneous blessing." Dr. 
Huntington should have known before quoting a state- 
ment from Dr. Whitehead's "Life of Wesley," that he was 
quoting an author who, though himself a dissenter, was 



108 Works, Vol. I, p. 122. ™ Ibid., Vol. II, p. 405. 
™Ibid., Vol., VII, p. 190. 



SIN AND HOUNBSS. 213 



not partial to Mr. Wesley and his doctrines. He was 
more friendly to Charles than John, and had but little 
sympathy for the especial truth for which he stood. The 
above quotations prove Mr. Whitehead's statements un- 
true. Had Mr. Wesley appointed him superintendent as 
he desired, he might have written a different life of this 
worthy man. 

The jumble of parts of history into an argument is 
exceedingly weak. Only by date can one guess who he 
means ; but it is taken for granted that it was Bell, Owen, 
and Maxfield. Now, Mr. Wesley says explicitly : "I like 
your doctrine of perfection. . . . Your insisting that 
it is merely by faith ; that consequently it is instantaneous, 
and that it may be now at this instant." "I dislike the 
saying, 'This was not known or taught among us till 
within two or three years.' I grant, you did not know it. 
You have over and over denied instantaneous sanctifica- 
tion to me. But I have known and taught it above these 
twenty years." If the reader will take pains to examine 
this whole matter, as found in Moore's "Life of Wesley," 
Part 2, pages 130-135, he will find all the objections Mr. 
Wesley had to this new movement. But he will not find 
what Dr. Huntington says. The doctrine of the instan- 
taneous removal of the root of sin now introduced for 
the first time. He will not find Mr. Wesley protesting 
against any such thing, nor charging the fanatics with 
introducing it ; and a careful examination of Mr. Wesley's 
writings will show that he taught the instantaneous re- 
moval of inbred sin, or the roots of sin, before this fanat- 



2i 4 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



icism was dreamed of. This fanaticism upset Charles 
Wesley for the time, and caused him to question the whole 
work; but he afterward rallied and stood faithful unto 
death. Charles Wesley never said that this doctrine of 
the removal of the roots of sin caused his disaffection. 
It is useless to attempt to overthrow argument based upon 
a false bit of history. 

EFFECTS UPON THE CHURCHES. 

Assuming that his arguments are correct, based upon 
his false item of history, he proceeds to show similar 
effects upon the Churches of to-day. He says : 

"But we express the convictions of not a few in the Church 
when we say that this theory of what it is to be holy, which was 
new to Methodism, is now doing Methodism and the cause of 
Christ harm." 111 

"We express the conviction of not a few in the Church 
when we say that this theory of what it is to be holy," 
advocated by Dr. Huntington, has not a single advocate, 
since Methodism was born among all its theologians, rec- 
ognized by the Church as such. Why? We have shown 
that Mr. Wesley and Fletcher advocated the removal of 
the "root of sin" and "inbred sin" by an instantaneous 
act. So did Clarke, Benson, Watson, etc., and we have 
the same right to charge home upon this and a few other 
writers (six in all) a most damaging effect upon the spir- 
itual life of the Church from their false teaching, but 
crimination has little value in itself. That some who op- 



111 Sin and Holiness, p. 249. 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



215 



pose such writers are narrow and unwise in their oppo- 
sition there can be no doubt, nor is the other side beyond 
blame for their treatment of holiness professors. 

This author seems to think special meetings ''for the 
promotion of holiness" are new things. Mr. Wesley 
called the same class of meetings "select meetings," against 
which the same objections were raised. What about the 
Young Men's Christian Association and Woman's Chris- 
tian Temperance Union and similar organizations requir- 
ing special papers, money, meetings, talents, etc.? The 
same objection holds good in these cases. 

We are now discussing the cause of our decline in 
spirituality. Mr. Wesley passed through such a period, 
and this is his deliverance concerning it. "A general 
faintness in this respect (preaching perfection) is fallen 
upon the whole kingdom. Sometimes I seem almost 
weary of striving against the stream of both preachers 
and people." "That point, entire salvation from inbred 
sin, can hardly ever be insisted upon, either in preaching 
or prayer without a particular blessing." May we not 
find some measure of explanation of the present condition 
in the cessation of that burning ministry and testimony 
of the earlier ministers concerning cleansing from in- 
bred sin? 

CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

Such is the nature of a review, that the matter here 
presented must appear incomplete. Our task, however 
poorly, is done concerning this author. We think we 
have clearly shown the following: 



216 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



1. That the author's experience upon which he bases 
his theory does not measure up to the standard of the most 
reliable and competent witnesses of this grace. Con- 
sciousness — not exegesis — detects the absence of certain 
facts accompanying a genuine experience of Scriptural 
entire sanctification. The absence of these facts in the 
mind of the writer causes him to say things no one who 
had experienced holiness, would say. 

2. His definition of sin excludes several definitions 
found in the Word of God. 

3. He utterly ignores the blood of Jesus Christ as a 
cleansing pow T er from all sin. 

4. His teaching is a denial of what Methodism has 
always held concerning sin and holiness. 

5. He contradicts himself. He makes all sin to lie in 
the realm of the will, and yet treats of sin in the heart. 

6. His teaching excludes children from the atonement. 

7. He teaches Christians may and do sin "more or 
less," and remain Christians. 

8. He misrepresents Mr. Wesley and Mr. Fletcher, 
not by what he says, but by excluding some of their defi- 
nitions of sin and holiness. 

9. He contradicts history concerning fanaticism 
among the early Methodists. 

These and many other charges can be substantiated 
against this book. It is unmethodistic, unscriptural, and 
unhistoric. 

It can not but be harmful to many, especially to those 
who have not the facts of a genuine experience to cope 



SIN AND HOUNHSS. 



with its sophistry. It is utterly contrary to experience. 
It seems to have no place for those spiritual exaltations 
which come from purified sensibilities ; those feelings one 
possesses who is being acted upon by powers beyond him, 
while he remains quiescent. Everything of the glow and 
glory of those who find real sanctification is absent from 
his volume or its professed experience. The vision of 
purity is wanting. There is no overcoming by "the blood 
of the Lamb and the word of their testimony." Nothing 
in the book awakens a song in the soul. Cold, stern vo- 
lition, disassociated from the fount of a pure affection, is 
the determiner of destiny. The larger world of a purified 
affection is excluded by being relegated to the realm of 
necessity. It makes one sad to see a system reared upon 
the foundation of disappointed desires. Its highest con- 
cept of God is character, not nature. Its largest concept 
of man is activity, not being. It has no fellowship with a 
single worthy of the glorious past. It astonishes you with 
its newness and the strangeness of its untried path. It is 
a monument to a liberty which violates all honorable 
pledges to drive away all "strange" doctrines. It awak- 
ens no confidence and imparts no warmth. Its guesses 
may cause some hitherto disappointed soul, like its 
author's, to try this new way ; but to those who have joy- 
fully walked in Isaiah's "way of holiness" it can have no 
charms. 

One is never introduced to "the Lamb of God, which 
taketh away the sin of the world." Such writings will 
drive the common multitudes to tents, associations, con- 



2i8 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



ventions, periodicals, and meetings, however crude the 
appearance or rude the speaker to hear a company sing: 

"Dear dying Lamb ! Thy precious blood 

Shall never lose its power 
Till all the ransomed Church of God 
Are saved, to sin no more." 

And they, not us, must take the blame of the effect upon 
the Churches. 

If such writers as Dr. Huntington would lend their 
powers to conserve the work of holiness as they found it 
going when they entered Methodism and said they be- 
lieved its doctrines, instead of humiliating dearth coining 
upon us, our altars would be crowded with seekers of 
holiness of heart. All such writers necessitating protect- 
ive measures on the part of loyal sons of the Church 
should cease, at least until the Church as such repudiates 
the doctrine it has continuously taught them. To teach 
a theology which calls its members to seek an experience, 
and then, after they have been led into it by such teaching, 
to give its sanction to a teaching which denies the experi- 
ence, is to discredit itself and disrespect its own authority. 
Those in the experience the Church itself has taught, who 
are loyal to that teaching, are not going to surrender the 
Church they love nor the experience it has led them into ; 
but by every legitimate means will meet the denier of its 
doctrines. If there is conflict within, may it not have come 
from the subtle disaffection organized by strong sentiment 
and pernicious writings, more than from holiness organ- 
izations and literature which had no existence before these 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



219 



strange doctrines began to be advocated, or preaching en- 
tire sanctification was neglected. 

That those inside the Church should be compelled, out- 
side its walls, to rear altars and tell experiences, and 
preach the doctrines it has from childhood taught them, 
because of the protest of influential, intelligent, but mis- 
guided teachers, and these honest souls, sometimes left 
to the mercy of unwise teachers self-appointed, is a piece 
of wastefulness that should at once cease. 

The intelligent, seeking the highest type of spirituality 
without a conscious experience to guide them, are turning 
away in doubt from a system of teaching having contra- 
dictory teachers to the various movements outside, where 
they find oneness of mind. With reluctance they turn 
away from the altar where some intelligent, loyal Chris- 
tian minister has prayed them into this experience, as they 
listen to his successor deny their consciousness because 
of his own non-consciousness. In meekness and quietude 
financially loyal, in attendance faithful, in suffering pa- 
tient, they turn to the plain forest tabernacle, because one 
of their own ministers, suffering for his loyalty, preaches 
the truth to which the Church has always been committed. 
We deplore the extravagances that occassionally attend 
such movements as much as Dr. Huntington, and if he 
would use his pen to urge what Wesley, Fletcher, Clarke, 
Watson, and others have taught as Scriptural holiness, 
he would do much to end the extravagances he exposes. 

It is time Methodism ceased opposing itself. Until 



22o MBTHODIST THEOLOGY '. 



then the state of the Church will continue as now, and the 
effect upon the Churches will be increasingly disastrous. 

OBJECTIONS. 

I object to a definition of holiness, whose highest at- 
tainment is obedience to the obligations which duty im- 
poses, instead of subjective conformity to the requirements 
of the moral law. 

I object to any definition of holiness which leaves its 
subject conscious of inherent antipathies to a perfect con- 
formity to moral law, however perfect the obedience 
may be. 

I object to a theory requiring in childhood sinless 
purity, when there is no consciousness of a transition from 
it to a fallen nature. The first affirmations of conscious- 
ness that man is in sin he knows not how, is universal. 
Innate opposition to moral law is discovered, not volition- 
ated. Consciousness asserts a power within manifesting 
itself as from us, and not something from without newly 
entering into us. If one child is born pure, all children 
are. There is no middle ground between purity and sin- 
fulness. If all sin lies in the will, as this author holds, 
some children ought to choose purity as a continuous 
state from the beginning. 

I object to uncontrollable selfishness at the seat of the 
ego, being called and treated as the sensual nature, need- 
ing control and regulation. That the sensual nature is 
disturbed is granted, but its disturbance is caused by the 
activity of sin as a power in us operating against our wills. 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



221 



I object to this theory, because it ignores the relation 
of non-willful personality to moral law. There is such a 
thing as personal activity in evil previous to deliberate, 
unholy choice, which is related to moral law and is plainly 
recognized in the Scriptures. 

I object to this theory, because it makes no provision 
for those longings after the world which the will has 
already left behind it, and has already been condemned by 
the action of the will regarding them. There are positive 
longings after forbidden things, other than sensual, re- 
maining in the nature of every Christian believer, and he 
is conscious that they have their source in his personality, 
under the protest of his will. 

I object to this theory, because it ignores the depravity 
of the will as an indivisible and inseparable part of the 
personality. 

I object to this theory, because the awakening activity 
of the will does not destroy a large amount of uninten- 
tional activity of the person, which the consciousness of 
the actor declares is not determined, but nevertheless evil. 

I object to this theory, because there are many deeds 
of the person, disapproved of the conscience after they are 
committed, which had not the element of a transgression 
of known law. 

I object to this theory, because it ignores depravity as 
an active power, and implies that the possibility to sin is 
the only moral effect of the fall. Placing the intellect and 
sensibilities under the law of necessity, and therefore re- 
moving them from the realm of morals, the will alone, 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



and not the person who possesses the will, is capable of 
entering the category of sin. Possibility can be predicted 
only of pure natures. It is contrary to Scripture to imply 
that it is possible for fallen humanity to sin. They are 
sinners by nature, and must be so considered. Something 
must account for the fact that the world has produced only 
one exception, and He is the Sinless One. 

I object to this theory, because it can not account for 
the universal sinfulness of the race and for the need of a 
universal redemption. 

I object to this theory, because it really makes the 
effect of the fall a want of righteousness or readjustment, 
instead of an actual defilement of the entire man, including 
the loss of original righteousness. 

I object to this theory, because children can not be in- 
cluded in the atonement ; for the atonement is for sin, and 
it ignores and denies the positive statement of the Scrip- 
tures declaring guilt of all the descendants of Adam. 
(Rom. v, 12-19.) Sin in the Scriptures is not merely an 
act of the will in a pure state; the perversity of the will 
is included in its definition, and that perversity is active 
in children before they can commit willful transgression 
of known law. The awakening consciousness of child- 
hood is not that of non-volitional action, to now be put 
forth for the first time ; but that the will is sinful because 
the entire self is. He awakens to find it formed in the 
habit of rejecting God to the degree of positive enmity. 
This selfishness had its origin in a will not its own ; but it 



SIN AND HOLINESS. 



223 



gave to its offspring a will impregnated with itself, be- 
sides a bent in the direction of its manifestation. 

I object to the book, because it misrepresents the repre- 
sentative teachers, Mr. Wesley and Mr. Fletcher, by rep- 
resenting only one phase of what they taught. 

I object to this theory, because it is un-Wesleyan, un- 
scriptural, and not sustained by the arguments of its 
author. 

I object to this book being put into the Swedish Course 
of Study for Local Preachers for the Second Year by our 
bishops, who themselves preach against its teachings and 
urge the study of volumes this author denies. Let us be; 

CONSISTENT. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 



Studies in Christian Doctrine. 

By Wilbur F. Tiixett, D. D., 
Dean of the Theological Faculty and Professor of Sys- 
tematic Theology in Vanderbilt University. 

"I still think perfection is another term for holiness, or the 
image of God in man. God made man perfect, I think is just the 
same as He made him holy." — John Wesley, March 12, 1756. 

"This much is certain. They that love God with all their 
heart and all men as themselves are Scripturally perfect. And 
surely such there are ; otherwise the promise of God would be a 
mere mockery of human weakness. Hold this fast." — John Wes- 
ley, April 7, 1763. 

225 



15 



"But it is said, l 0, but you printed ten lines last August 
(1770) which contradict all your other writings.' Be not so sure 
of this. It is probale, at least, that / understand my own meaning 
as well as you do, and that meaning I have yet again declared in 
the sermon last referred to.* By that interpret those ten lines, 
and you will understand them better. Although I should think 
that any one might see, even without this help, that the lines in 
question do not refer to the condition of obtaining, but of con- 
tinuing in the favor of God. But whether the sentiment contained 
in those lines be right or wrong, and whether it be well or ill 
expressed, the Gospel which I now preach (1771) God does still 
confirm by many witnesses in every place. Perhaps never so much 
as in these last three months. Now I argue from glaring, un- 
deniable fact that God can not bear witness to a lie." — John 
Wesley. 



:: Sermons, Vol. II, p. 470. 

226 



CHAPTER IV. 



Professor Wilbur F. Tii^ett, of Vanderbilt Univer- 
sity, has written a book entitled "Studies in Christian 
Doctrine," in which he sets forth consecutively many 
phases of the Christian life. Especial attention is given 
to Holiness and Christian Perfection. 

LACKS EXPERIMENTAL CLEARNESS. 

His volume lacks historical accuracy, his definitions 
are distortions. He fails in a persistent adherence to his 
own definitions, and changes them as the phase of the 
theme he is discussing may require. He seemingly pays 
little attention to the atonement for sin, slights the doc- 
trine of human depravity, and has the honor of advancing 
a theory of sanctification entirely new, which he utterly 
fails to sustain. Anything new on this theme must be 
able to account for all past experience in the Church, upon 
a different basis than the one it declares as the theory 
which leads into the experience. Unlike Dr. Huntington, 
he makes no profession of having sought the experience 
according to the established standards, and he places the 
merits of his theory upon exegesis. He comes under the 
list of those of whom Hugh Price Hughes said: "One of 
the chief difficulties in discussing so intensely experi- 

227 



228 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



mental and personal a doctrine as this is, that those who 
have never sought and received the 'second blessing' are 
both intellectually and morally incapable of discussing it. 
. . . They are sincere and excellent Christians, but 
they are at present ignorant of facts which are spiritually 
discerned. A man may be even a doctor of divinity or 
a professor of theology without understanding this par- 
ticular fact of the spiritual life; . . . this is one of 
the cases in which 'the heart makes the theologian.' " 

A careful study of the book verifies the correctness of 
these words. It lacks the spiritual clearness of one who 
has seen the reality, and it holds the reader rigidly to an 
intellectual analysis of words, never revealing the heart- 
throbs of the reality it seeks to define. One of the modern 
errors of educators is a determination to make our spirit- 
ual consciousness include no more than the classical mean- 
ing of the letter expressing it. Even a critic can only 
give his own interpretation of the image formed in his 
mind. If he has not a spiritual illumination and a con- 
sciousness of the reality of the truth, he can have no fel- 
lowship with those who have such a consciousness ; with- 
out these it would be an accident if he stumbled on a 
sound theory of the facts. To deny spiritual conscious- 
ness exceeding one's definitions, is to limit the workings 
of Divine grace to the grasp of human reasonings, thus 
excluding the glories of faith, which do not contradict 
reason, but far transcend it. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 229 



LOVE DEFINED. 

There is a looseness of expression quite unfortunate 
for the writer. He says : 

"The first and perhaps greatest service which Christ rendered 
the human race by His teachings was to make God lovable." 1 

"To love God and be loved by Him, we must be holy. It is 
as impossible for us to love while we are sinful, as it is for us to 
be loved." 2 

"To live a life of perfect love is the ideal life, the highest life 
possible to man." 3 

"The love that perfects must itself be perfect. By saying that 
love is perfect, we simply affirm its soleness and supremacy in 
man's heart and life." "In the interpretation of heaven that love 
is perfect which carries with it the whole man and all that he 
has." 4 

What strange statements, that Christ made God lov- 
able by His teachings ! Was not God "lovable" before 
Christ came and taught? Was He not loved by millions 
of devout Jews, the hundred and forty and four thousand 
who were "sealed the servants of God in their foreheads" 
from the common ranks of Israel? Has he fallen into 
the idea of the higher critics that the Old Testament peo- 
ples were incapable of large spiritual experience? Was 
not the pre-Christian Church under the command to love 
God with all the heart, soul, and mind? And does Dr. 
Tillett mean to say that none came up to that standard? 
I can not think he does ; but if he does not, he is exceed- 
ingly unfortunate in his statement. 

He says it is impossible for us to be loved "while we 
are sinful." What is the basis of this statement? It is 

1 P. 4. 2 p. I2 . 3 p. 449 . 4 pp. 452-453. 



2 3 o METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



denied by human affection, and is contrary to the Word of 
God, "God so loved the world, that He gave His only 
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not 
perish, but have everlasting life." 0 "God commendeth 
His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners 
Christ died for us." 6 These and many other passages of 
Scripture contradict the above statement. If he means 
that the love of God as manifest in Jesus Christ is re- 
jected by the sinful, he should have said so ; but this un- 
qualified statement, as a statement of doctrine, is utterly 
false, and is indeed a strange Gospel. 

DEFINITIONS OF SIN. 

For a sound doctrinal statement concerning holiness, 
entire sanctification, perfect love, perfection, we must find 
the negative aspect of it in a correct definition of sin. Un- 
like Dr. Huntington, he has more than one. He says : 

"Nor was the primitive state, without original sin and with- 
out the atonement, much, if any, more favorable to testing char- 
acter, or more conducive to a happy issue, than the fallen state 
with original sin and with the compensating benefits of the atone- 
ment." 7 

"The universal sinfulness of the human race is one of the 
most undeniable of all moral facts." s 

"The most common definition of sin is that of a voluntary 
transgression of a known law. . . . It is to be distinguished 
from that sinfulness of nature which may be either acquired or 
inherited." "In so far as this sinfulness of nature, this tendency 
toward wrong-doing, is transmitted from parent to child, it is 
called original sin, or hereditary depravity. If sin be so defined 
as to include any and all want of conformity to the law of God, 
as well as actual transgression of that law (and this we have seen 



5 John iii, 16. 6Rom. v, 8. ' P. 55. 8 P-75- 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 231 



is the meaning of anomia, the most definitive Bible term for sin), 
then that quality of man's moral nature which manifests itself 
as a bias toward sin, whether it be acquired or inherited, may not 
improperly be called sin." "The real seat of sin is in the heart." 
''The essence of sin is selfishness, the setting up of self in defiance 
of God, the opposition of the created to the Creator's will." 9 

"In the last analysis sin and goodness lie not in outward 
actions, but in inner dispositions." 10 

"Let us not land in the opposite error of Pelagianism, which 
denies in toto any and every doctrine of original sin." 11 

"All men are not necessarily actual and willful sinners; but 
all men are nevertheless regarded as sinners by nature, and this 
because of the fall — at least such is Paul's doctrine." 12 

"It may be asked why personal salvation on God's part con- 
sists of both justification and regeneration. Why would not 
justification alone or regeneration alone suffice to make complete 
the salvation of a soul? It is because there are two kinds of sins — 
actual sin, or voluntary transgression of the law of God ; and the 
sin of nature, which consists of both original sin and the reflex 
influence on moral character of repeated acts of sin. From both 
of these kinds of sin man needs to be saved." 13 

"Acts of sin may be compared to the black characters written 
upon a sheet of paper; the sin of nature to discoloring elements 
that enter into the very fiber of the paper itself. The blotting out 
of sins (Acts iii, 19) is the pardon of all actual transgressions, 
but another and different act is required to cleanse and purify the 
sin-polluted soul of man." 14 

"All sin 'in sight' was given up at and in conversion, but 
other sin will presently come in sight as the Christian advances 
and as spiritual vision grows clearer." 15 

"Nor should we recognize any conscious sin as compatible 
with the regenerate state." 16 

"Sins of omission." "Sins of surprise." 17 

These lengthy quotations have been inserted to give 
no chance for any indifference to every phase of the 
author's definitions of sin. He holds that the entire race 



9 pp. 76,77. 

14 P. 136. 



10 P. 78. 

15 P- 137. 



11 P. 82. 
16 P. I38. 



12 P. 88. i 3 P. i35- 
17 P. 39i. 



2 3 2 mhthodist theology . 



is sinful ; that there is a sinfulness of nature which is 
hereditary, called original sin; that all men are regarded 
as sinners by nature because of the fall; that there are 
two kinds of sin, actual and of nature — the one to be 
blotted out, the other by a different act cleansing the sin- 
polluted soul of man. He talks of sin "in sight," which, 
of course, implies some sin not in sight ; that there are 
sins of omission and sins of surprise in regenerate be- 
lievers, but that conscious sin is not compatible with the 
regenerate state. All this we steadfastly believe ; but 
when he comes to the process of dealing with sin, we will 
find some new theories. He is far more Scriptural and 
Methodistic than Dr. Huntington in his definitions of sin. 

He says the essence of sin is selfishness. If he means 
non-volitional self-perversity of nature resulting from 
Adam's willful act, he is correct; otherwise the sentence 
needs guarding. 

REGENERATION. 
Defining regeneration, he says : 

"Regeneration, on the other hand, has to do exclusively with 
the sin of nature, — original sin and the habitus of sin, or hered- 
itary and acquired depravity." 18 

"Regeneration may be defined as 'that mighty change in man 
wrought by the Holy Spirit, by which the dominion which sin has 
had over him in his natural state is broken and abolished, so that, 
with full choice of will and the energy of right affections, he 
serves God freely and runs in the way of His commandments. 
. . . It is that renewal of our nature which gives us dominion 
over sin and enables us to serve God from love, and not merely 
from fear.' This excellent definition by Richard Watson neither 



18 P. I 3 6. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 233 



underestimates nor overestimates the work of regeneration in 
man's salvation." 19 

"Others have erred in the opposite direction, unduly exagger- 
ating the work done in regeneration, teaching a doctrine which 
neither accords with the New Testament nor with universal 
Christian experience, making of those who are but 'babes in 
Christ' little less than mature and perfect saints, and representing 
truly regenerate believers as no longer having any battle with sin 
in their own hearts and natures. But experience proves that the 
regenerate Christian soon discovers that there is much that his 
own heart calls sinful in him and about him after his conversion, 
and that, instead of having then won the final victory over all sin, 
only the ascendency over sin was secured, and the real battle with 
sin is then but truly begun." 20 

"He who consciously and willfully commits sin can not at the 
same time be a regenerate Christian and continue such." 21 

"Regeneration, or the new birth, has been well defined as 
'the final and decisive work wrought in the spirit and moral nature 
of man when the perfect principle of spiritual life in Christ Jesus 
is imparted by the Holy Ghost.' " 22 

"If one Christian seems to be less perfect at his regeneration 
than another, it is because one sinner differs from another in his 
antecedents and in what he is at the time of his regeneration, 
and not because God does a less thorough work for one than 
another." 23 

"In considering the problem of spiritual life and growth, we 
must not ignore the fact that the 'new born' soul is not, like 
Adam, a being perfectly free from every taint of depravity and 
sin, but he is a regenerated fallen being, into whose nature there 
enters at the time of his regeneration both inherited and acquired 
depravity, the effects of which do not wholly disappear at regener- 
ation." 24 

"Regeneration is like all God's acts, perfect and complete in 
its kind, and that God therein does all that, in the nature of the 
case, needs to be done, or can be done, instantaneously, to effect 
the radical or thorough salvation of the penitent and believing 
sinner." 25 

"In the regenerate there are both good and evil ; but the good 



W P. 231. 20 P. 232. 21 p. 2 4I< 22p <3II . 23p -3I7< 

24 P. 318. 25 p. 232. 



234 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



principle is in dominion over the evil, and the believer maintains 
an ever-increasing ascendency over the evil, whose dominion was 
destroyed in regeneration."" 6 

"A regenerated believer will not, of course, commit a delib- 
erate and premeditated sin ; if so, he is already fallen from grace, 
even before the outward sin is committed."" 7 

"The difficulty lies in the fact that any definition of the work 
of regeneration (such, for example, as that given in Wesley's 
sermons) that is made to include all that the Bible includes in 
it, and also to exclude all that the Bible excludes in the way of 
sin, seems to leave no room for remaining sin or sins." 28 

The Professor concedes that Richard Watson "neither 
underestimates nor overestimates the work of regenera- 
tion." If the reader will notice, Richard Watson does not 
touch the question of "original sin, or hereditary and 
acquired depravity." His definition does not include 
that act "required to cleanse and purify the sin-polluted 
soul of man." Regeneration breaks the dominion of the 
sin of our natures, but does not destroy it. It stands for 
"renewal" as Mr. Watson says, and not for the removal 
of anything. It destroys dominion, but not that over 
which it has dominion. In one of the above quotations 
he concedes as much when he says, that "experience 
proves that the regenerate Christian soon discovers that 
there is much that his own heart calls sinful ;" that he 
has only the "ascendency over sin." Yet, strange to say 
he says regeneration "that is made to include all that the 
Bible includes in it and also exclude all that the Bible 
excludes in the way of sin, seems to leave no room for 
remaining sin or sins." 

2G p. 233. 27 p. 375 . 28 p. 386. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 235 



Which must we believe? If experience "proves" that 
the regenerate "discovers much that his own heart calls 
sinful," and yet a sound rendering of the Scriptures 
"seems to leave no room for remaining sin or sins," what 
makes what is discovered sinful? Can the element of 
sin be absent from that which is sinful? The contradic- 
tion is neither in experience nor in the Bible, but in Dr. 
Tillett's theory of regeneration. He is correct when he 
says that the regenerate "battle with sin in their own 
hearts and natures," and that it is there antecedent to any 
volition on their part, a "discovery" and not self-willed 
determination to do evil, producing sin. These are his 

DEFINITIONS OF SANCTIFICATION, OR HOUNESS. 

"Sanctification, something done both for us and in us." It 
"may be defined as that Divine act which fits a man for worship 
in the temple of God. It is of the believer's sanctification, or 
holiness, that we wish now to speak; of that attribute of holiness 
which belongs to every believer from the moment of his justifica- 
tion and regeneration." 20 

"If we define holiness as that attribute of a free being under 
probation which results from right volitions and virtuous acts, 
and guilt as that attribute which results, under probation, from 
wrong volitions and sinful acts, we have a definition that is at 
once clear and self-consistent, and is the only definition that can 
harmonize with the doctrine of moral free agency." 30 

Adam "was not so much created holy as placed here to 
develop holiness." "This probationary holiness is the highest 
kind of creaturely holiness." 31 

"Necessitated holiness of a free being is a contradiction in 
thought." 32 

"Sanctification and holiness are translations of one and the 
same word both in Hebrew and Greek, and hence they mean the 
same thing." 33 



29 P. 255. 30 p. 35. 31 p. 36. 32 p. 79. 33 p. 257. 



236 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



"For any one, therefore, to suppose in reading the Bible that 
the term 'sanctification' or 'holiness' as there found refers to an 
experience into which one enters only at some definite time sub- 
sequent to regeneration, is to misunderstand the term." "The 
central idea in sanctification, or holiness, alike in the Old Testa- 
ment and in the New, is 'separation from' and 'set apart to.' It 
signifies separation from the world, from that which is secular, 
from sin, and a setting apart to God to His worship and service, 
and to that which is sacred. . . . This act, whether regarded 
as God's act, or man's act, or a joint Divine-human act, takes place 
contemporaneously with justification and regeneration." "The 
first element in sanctification is separation from sin." 34 "To make 
salvation from sin complete, not only must sin be pardoned in 
justification and its dominion broken by regeneration, but there 
must be a separation from sin ; a tearing up, as it were, by the 
roots ; either a tearing up of the man from his sin, or a tearing 
up of sin from the man. This is the work of sanctification in con- 
version, and will continue to be the work of sanctification after 
conversion, if any of the 'roots of sin' are found to have been 
left imbedded in the moral nature of the justified and regenerate 
man. At conversion the penitent believer, by virtue of the work 
of sanctification that is then wrought in him and upon him, is 
separated from all sinfulness and sin then 'in sight,' then felt and 
known." 35 

"We come now to consider the possibilities of the believer in 
the opposite direction, that of sinlessness and holiness, and here 
whatever is possible to a believer is not only his privilege, but his 
duty." 36 

Here are definitions ad arbitrium. Holiness is sanc- 
tification ; it is the antithesis of guilt ; it is something de- 
veloped ; it is sinlessness ; it is coterminous with regen- 
eration, consequently instantaneous. It means the same 
thing as sanctification. Something done both for us and 
in us ; it belongs to every believer from the moment of his 
justification and regeneration. It results from right voli- 

3 * P. 259. 35 p. 2 6o. 36 p. 399. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 237 



tions and virtuous acts. Adam did not possess it when 
he was created. It is a divine act which fits a man for 
worship in the temple of God. It is an attribute of a 
free being. It is more than regeneration which only 
breaks the dominion of sin, it is a tearing up of the man 
from his sin. It continues after regeneration if any of 
the roots of sin are found left embedded in the moral na- 
ture. It separates from all sinfulness and sin "in sight" 
at regeneration. Every regenerate believer should live 
sinless or holy to be normal. Such are the positions taken 
by this writer in defining holiness, or sanctification, which 
he distinguishes from entire sanctification which he holds 
is subsequent to regeneration, as we shall afterwards 
explain. 

To admit infants into this necessary experience, as a 
"fitness" for heaven, he holds to a "necessitated holiness," 
but says it is not as superior a type as developed "crea- 
tarely holiness." 

Just how he is going to harmonize these various defi- 
nitions it is impossible to understand. If holiness is the 
antithesis of guilt it can not be something developed. He 
says man's "freedom was given him for the development 
of holiness in order that through holiness he might realize 
the highest possible creaturely happiness." 37 He knows 
that what is developed is inherent. Where does he get 
the holiness to develop ? 

He says "in the creation man was made in God's 
image ; in the incarnation God was made in man's 

37 p. 37. 



238 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



image." 38 Now if his theory of holiness is true and his 
statement concerning Adam, that he was not created 
holy, is true, then Jesus was not holy ; and the angel which 
said to Mary "that holy thing which shall be born of thee 
shall be called the Son of God" was mistaken. 

He says Adam "had, as he came from the hands of his 
Creator, a fleshly nature that was a channel of temptation, a 
source of sin, that was. as it were, fuel out of which the fire of 
sin could be kindled, but this ought not to be called sin. It is 
found in the regenerate ; it is found in the entirely sanctified." 39 

Jesus took upon him our nature. Was it "a source 
of sin?" Did Adam's sin rise in the fleshly nature as its 
source? The Scriptures make his temptation rise in an 
appeal to their "being as gods, knowing good and evil." 
The idea that Jesus was possessed of a fleshly nature 
which was a "source of sin" is utterly unfounded and 
without proof. When Paul said we were "created in 
righteousness and true holiness," he meant the righteous- 
ness of God, which in Christ Jesus is made unto us wis- 
dom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemp- 
tion; something to be "put on" as quickly as the "old 
man" is to be laid aside or "put off," and not something 
to be developed. Something "which after God (his 
image) is created" by God. Righteousness and true holi- 
ness are the results of creative acts, and not the Platonic 
idea of the sum of right volitions and virtuous acts. 

On page 305, he says : "God's nature is holiness, and 
what better definition of personal religion can there be 
than to designate it as "partaking of the divine nature ?" 40 
ss p. 28. 39 p. 390 . 40 p. 305. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 239 



If God's nature is holiness it is not the "result of right 
volition and virtuous acts." If it is so, we can not partake 
of it. If man was made in the image of God, then he 
must have been made holy, for Professor Tillett says 
man was made in God's image in creation. If God's 
nature is holiness it can not be the result of self-deter- 
mination. 

Holiness is not a process, it is a state of which sancti- 
fication is the process, and violence is done to language to 
make them synonymous. 

If absolute holiness is necessitated in God, can not the 
Absolute One create a type of holiness independent of 
trial or development, and let the character-building 
(which Professor Tillett confounds with holiness) be the 
result of retaining that high type of created holiness in- 
stead of making the holiness a development? Does he 
know of any reason why God could not create holiness? 
He thinks so, and says : "In free beings necessitated holi- 
ness and necessitated guilt are alike impossible." 41 Is 
not God free? Yet his holiness is necessitated. Does he 
ignore judicial guiltiness by which the whole world is 
guilty before God ? Can not God create a holy being and 
let his test be to determine whether he will remain so ? I 
ask the Professor to give us a psychological, spiritual, or 
Scriptural reason why God could not create a being holy ? 
Indeed, he admits that there may be such "for aught we 
know," but insists "that their holiness is of a far inferior 
type to that of men and angels who have had to undergo 



«P. 34- 



2 4 o METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



a trial and develop holiness as the result of a severe and 
fearful probation that had in it the awful possibility of 
guilt and sin." 42 The same "possibility" would remain 
if God created men holy, as the Church has always taught 
Adam was created. Why should not a character be as 
glorious contending to retain holiness, as by this process 
of development which he advocates? 

The holiness he teaches as coterminus with regen- 
eration, is itself of a "far inferior type." It only deals 
with sinfulness and sin "in sight" at regeneration. This 
implies that the real character of sin is not known at re- 
generation. Thousands testify to having no conscious- 
ness of what he terms "the sin of nature" at their regen- 
eration, nor for some time subsequent, when its mani- 
festation awakened them to its existence and true nature. 
Their regeneration with dominion over it was necessary 
to reveal its true character. If regeneration "has to do 
exclusively with the sin of nature and the habitus of sin, 
or hereditary and acquired depravity" 43 — as this author 
holds, it only gives dominion over the sin of nature. 

His real difficulty lies in the misconception of these 
works. Justification removes actual guilt and condem- 
nation. Purity and cleansing remove "the sin of nature" 
and its pollutions. Regeneration renews the sinful na- 
ture to giving dominion over sin. Sanctification completes 
the renewal and makes the nature holy. Holiness is the 
state of the sanctified nature. Everything that is actually 
holy is pure. Cleansing and purifying is through the 

42 P. 36. « p. I36t 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 241 



blood of the atonement, as is pardon and justification. 
Regeneration and sanctification are works of the Holy 
Spirit, divine acts wrought upon our natures. 

As regeneration is a work by which we have dominion 
over sin, it is not that "act required to cleanse and purify 
the sin-polluted nature of man." 44 

If sanctification effects this cleansing it must deal 
with more than is "in sight" at regeneration. A purified 
and cleansed sin-polluted nature is spotless, stainless, sin- 
less, undefiled, unmixed. Such is not the condition of 
the sanctified he describes. If regeneration gives domin- 
ion over the sin of nature, and the sanctification coter- 
minous with it only deals with all sinfulness and sin in 
sight ; then neither his regeneration nor sanctification is 
that "act required to cleanse and purify the sin-polluted 
nature of man." 

The only Scriptural passage which would imply 
cleansing in regeneration is Titus iii, 5, which does not 
refer to an actual cleansing simultaneous with regenera- 
tion, or effected by it ; but to baptism, which in the New 
Testament times was a sign of our regeneration. The 
Savior uses the same term in the same way in John iii, 5. 

He says sanctification belongs to the believer "from 

the moment he is regenerate." How can this be if it is 

the same as holiness and is "the result of right volitions 

and virtuous acts." Can he tell us how many of these 

are necessary to secure holiness? But if, as he says, it 

is "a divine act which fits a man for worship in the tem- 

44 p. 136. 
16 



242 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



pie of God," it can not be the result of right volitions and 
virtuous acts. If the "temple of God," for which this 
sanctification fits us, is heaven (and I can not see what 
else he means) the sanctified soul so fitted has considera- 
ble sinfulness and sin not "in sight" to be disposed of 
after he is fitted for heaven. 

He says, "according to the Scriptures, sanctification, 
or separation from sin, is a work that takes place at the 
same time that sin is pardoned and its dominion broken." 45 
He means, of course, the "tearing up of the man from his 
sin or of the sin from the man." 46 This can not but be the 
sin of nature over which regeneration gives dominion, 
and simultaneously sanctification uproots. This occurs at 
the "moment" he is regenerated. This theory is based 
purely upon exegesis. It could not be an experience. If 
regeneration and sanctification occur the same moment, 
the one giving dominion over sin and the other removing 
it by the roots, of course, there can be no consciousness 
of the dominion over sin, for its removal being coetaneous 
with its dominion, there is no interval between the do- 
minion and the removal to discern the distinction. 

That regeneration gives dominion over the sin of 
nature is both Scriptural and a fact of consciousness, 
and it is indubitably attested by the most competent wit- 
nesses. How could this be a matter of consciousness if 
the two works are wrought at the same moment? Let 
the Professor explain. These witnesses composed of lin- 
guists, scholars, metaphysicians, scientists, professional 

45 P. 260. 46 p. 260. 



PERSONAL SALVATION 243 



men, insist that the sin of their nature was not uprooted 
at their regeneration, while they were conscious of hav- 
ing dominion over it; and thousands of the common 
people testify to the same thing. They rejoice exceed- 
ingly in having dominion over sin, as well as victory over 
temptation so that they do not violate a known law of 
God, but this very consciousness of dominion by regen- 
eration over "the sin of nature, and the habitus of sin, or 
hereditary and acquired depravity," is a proof that it ex- 
ists, and was not uprooted the moment they were regen- 
erated. Nor do they recognize with the years that it loses 
its power or changes its character. They do recognize a 
growth in grace, retarded by the sin of their nature, but 
they do not recognize a weakening of the sin. They 
have greater outward victory ; habits contracted by the 
practice of sin weaken, and even frequently are suddenly 
destroyed, but the sin loses none of its power. Let the 
dominion once be broken and it springs life-size to take 
possession of the man, and instantly undoes the work of 
years of faithfulness. This is experience, as far as con- 
sciousness can express itself. 

Another class, having all the foregoing experiences ; 
by a very pungent conviction of the true nature of sin, 
and a clear revelation of the divine remedy for sin in the 
cleansing blood of Jesus Christ and the work of entire 
sanctification, have had, not only a consciousness of the 
dominion of sin broken, but of the absence of the sin de- 
manding dominion, so that the conflicts growing out of 
its existence have ceased, and conscious purity, perfect 



244 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



love, perfect peace reign within undisturbed ; and that 
the means which secured this end were entire consecra- 
tion, faith in the cleansing efficacy of Jesus's blood, and 
trusting in the Holy Spirit to complete the work begun 
in regeneration. 

He rightly uses the definite article in referring to "the 
sin of nature." To have it torn up leaves it impossible 
for any "roots" to remain. This is what Methodism has 
always taught. Nor can the Professor define the "roots" 
as he calls them. Its various forms of manifestation 
which prove its existence are fruits not "roots." 

The sanctification he teaches is mere assumption. 
Where is his Scripture for repeated sanctifications to 
secure complete deliverance from sin ? He says, "Convic- 
tion of sin belongs not to awakened and unconverted sin- 
ners alone, but in an important sense it characterizes the 
regenerate and finds its most perfect expression as an 
experience in those who have least of sin and most of 
holiness." 47 This statement shows that holiness or sanc- 
tification is not, in this writer's mind, "a divine act," but 
a continuous process. He quotes Isaiah sixth chapter as 
proof. Here is a marvelous vision of the holiness of God. 
Isaiah discovers his lack of conformity to it. The sin of 
his nature is manifest by "unclean lips." The angel 
touches his mouth with a coal "from off the altar" and 
his iniquity is taken away and his sin purged. A beau- 
tiful illustration of Old Testament purity. But where 
does the Professor's theory apply here? Had Isaiah 

47 P. «99- 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 245 



been regenerated and coterminously sanctified and this 
was just a case of "conviction of sin" in "a regenerate 
man who has least of sin and most of holiness?" Was 
this coterminous with his regeneration, and was this 
removal of his iniquity and the purging of his sin the 
result of right volitions and virtuous acts? When his 
iniquity was taken away and his sin purged were there 
"roots" of sin left for another purging? Has he any 
proof that tliis was a more frequent recurring experience 
with Isaiah the less he had of sin and the more he had of 
holiness? If so, why did Isaiah single out "the year 
King Uzziah died," and exclude all mention of the other 
sanctifications ? If this is not a case of "eisegesis, that is, 
reading into the Bible terms meaning already in the mind 
of the reader, but foreign to the mind of the inspired man 
who wrote it," what is it? Professor Tillett does not be- 
lieve that sanctification takes away all sinfulness and sin. 
He says : 

"The discovery of any sin or sinfulness on the part of the 
regenerate believer, as lurking in his heart or characterizing his 
life, is a divine call to forsake it instantly and absolutely 
But the justified and regenerate believer who, as soon as he be- 
comes conscious of anything sinful in his thoughts or feelings 
or volitions or acts, turns immediately with holy abhorrence 
therefrom, and goes in faith to Christ his Savior for deliver- 
ance, knowing by the very instincts of his regenerate soul that 
these things are incompatible with his heavenly birthright and 
sonship." 49 Happy is he who, knowing his high privilege as a 
son of God, has discovered the secret place of the Most High, 
and abides under the shadow of the Almighty, that sacred covert 
where perpetual penitence and prayer, and a never- wavering 



48 P. 426. 



49 P. 389. 



246 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



faith are the abiding guarantee that if sin ever comes in sight 
"it does so only to be instantly abhorred, rejected, pardoned, and 
c'eansed by the blood of Christ." 50 "It is impossible to glorify 
the Holy God without holiness, and it is impossible to have 
holiness and not glorify Him. Here God's will is carried out 
but imperfectly ; in heaven it is carried out perfectly. This is 
the best test and proof of holiness in a creature; doing perfectly 
the will of the Creator." 51 "If it be found that any one who 
thinks he has been converted comes to the consciousness of sin 
in himself of any kind — 'inbred sin,' sins of temper, pride, self- 
will, etc. — let us insist that he needs, and must have at once, a 
further radical and instantaneous work of grace in order to be 
saved from all sin ; and let that work be called by any Scriptural 
name that may suggest itself to any one as most proper." 52 

"The discovery of any sin or sinfulness" "lurking in 
his heart" is a proof to any regenerate believer that the 
sanctification taught by this writer did not remove "the 
sin of nature," and, to be consistent with his theory he 
should have advocated a second sanctification "tearing 
up" this sin "by the roots," and continuing to do so if any 
more sin was discovered. This discovery of sin lurking 
in the heart can not be willful sin, else it would not be a 
"discovery." Methodism has always taught believers 
make such a discovery, and that they must not conclude 
that they have lost their regeneration ; but go to Jesus for 
cleansing and entire sanctification. How is one to "for- 
sake" that which must be torn up by the roots? If this 
were voluntary sin it would require repentance, pardon, 
renewal, and, according to the Professor, sanctification 
and holiness. He does not teach that "the sin of nature" 
is to be "absolutely and instantly forsaken." Can a re- 



sop. 428. 51 p. 493. 52 p. 532. 



PERSONAL SALVATION 247 



generate man forsake his depravity — the sin of his na- 
ture, instantly and absolutely? He does not teach so un- 
less it occurs coterminously with regeneration ; and then 
it is not a forsaking, but an uprooting. This case is sub- 
sequent to regeneration, consequently can not be sanctifi- 
cation. He admits one may be sinful in his "volitions" — 
that is, he may sin willfully, and even "act sinfully and 
be regenerate ; but if he "turns immediately" therefrom 
he is not a backslider. Can one sin volitionally and not 
be conscious of it? He knows he can not. Yet he says 
we should not "recognize any conscious sin as compati- 
ble with the regenerate state." This Methodism has a 1 - 
ways taught. This sinning for a moment is the wav out 
for all these theorists. Why did he not include their 
holiness and sanctification as retained when willful sins 
are committed, provided they are immediately loathed 
and he goes to Christ for deliverance? Such writers 
charge the advocates of a second work of grace sub- 
sequent to regeneration with always minifying regenera- 
tion to make a place for entire sanctification. How fre- 
quently can a man be conscious of sin in his thoughts, 
feelings, volitions, and acts and retain his regenerate, 
sanctified, holy state? This loop-hole has excused mil- 
lions of regenerate Christians from seeking entire sanc- 
tification. 

Again he contradicts himself. He says, "This is the 
best test and proof of holiness in a creature; doing per- 
fectly the will of the Creator." As he does not qualify 
holiness, I suppose he means that holiness coterminous 



248 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



with regeneration. If one is not "doing perfectly the 
will of the Creator" he is not possessing holiness. But 
he says, "Here God's will is carried out but imperfectly; 
therefore there is no holiness 'here' at all, and God can not 
be glorified here, as 'it is impossible to glorify the holy 
God without holiness.' " His "further radical and in- 
stantaneous work of grace in order to be saved from all 
sin" is amusing indeed. If he had said, "If it be found 
that any one who 'knows' he has been converted" — we 
would accept the sentence, except that we think if there 
is any. such experience having a "Scriptural name" he 
should have named it. Methodism teaches that only those 
who know they are converted are conscious of "inbred 
sin," etc. Strange to say this "radical and instantaneous 
work of grace" is "in order to be saved from all sin" 
when the work of sanctification coterminous with regen- 
eration only saves from sin "in sight." Then, again, this 
salvation from all sin is "radical and instantaneous." 
According to this theory, it would not be a bad idea to 
think one's self converted and go in for this work of 
grace which "saves from all sin ;" that would be a decided 
advance upon the sanctification coterminous with regen- 
eration. He says: 

''With growth and advancing knowledge, however, come new 
discoveries of sin, and with these gracious and instantaneous de- 
liverance therefrom ; that the perfect life, therefore, involves 
as an essential part of its progress not merely one but many in- 
stantaneous deliverances from sin." 53 



53 P. 406. 



PERSONAL SALVATION, 



249 



These are "new discoveries," consequently not willful 
sin, and must refer to the depravity of our nature, involv- 
ing many "instantaneous deliverances from sin." He 
can not mean willful sin, for the temptation, the misuse of 
liberty, etc., would all be matters of consciousness incur- 
ring personal guilt. The sin referred to is the sin of 
nature, and he can not assure us that it is ever removed 
in this life. He says, "If at any time it reaches the zero 
point and becomes extinct that point of time is not a sub- 
ject of consciousness or of observation," 54 "it is probably 
known only to the omniscient mind of God." 55 He en- 
tirely ignores the state of conscious purity which is not 
simply an absence of the activity of depravity, but one of 
positive pureness. This is experience of which he can 
only say he has nothing in consciousness to respond to it, 
as there is nothing in Scripture to disprove it. 

He introduces an unscriptural distinction into his ar- 
gument, and builds a theory upon it, viz., a "normal re- 
generate state." He should regard his own definition of 
a theologian, "A theologian must be logical; and to be 
inaccurate, confused, and illogical in his statements is to 
place himself at the mercy of critics who will make haste 
to show wherein and why his system must be rejected 
as unsatisfactory. A theologian must be sound in his 
exegesis; and for him to base a doctrine on a false exe- 
gesis of Scripture is to construct a house on the sand, 
which must either be torn down or washed away." 50 Here 



54 P. 390. 55 p. 380. 56 p. 509. 



2 5 o METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



is not only unsound exegesis, but the introduction of a 
distinction wholly unwarranted by Scripture. Where do 
the Scriptures teach a "normal" and an "abnormal" re- 
generation? If they teach no such thing it is folly for 
him to build arguments, however apparently logical, upon 
such a theory. He teaches that there are "faulty types of 
regenerate life," those who commit "some sins" "without 
an immediate and necessary forfeiture of their status as 
sons of God." 57 He describes these sins (i) sins of sur- 
prise, due to being overtaken in a fault ; (2) sins of omis- 
sion, due to ignorance; (3) semi-willful sins. 

That the holiest of earth omit to do some things be- 
cause of ignorance, can not be questioned. This difficulty, 
however, is intellectual and not spiritual, and is provided 
for in the atonement ; but these "semi-willful sins" are 
nowhere provided for, and open a possibility of sinning 
and yet retaining regeneration that is unreasonable and 
has no foundation for it in the Word of God. How easily 
can one call every outburst of the carnal nature a "semi- 
willful" sin, and yet consider himself a son of God? Such 
a minifying of the regenerate state is unbecoming one 
who insists that so much is accomplished in, and in con- 
nection with regeneration. 

He endeavors to illustrate his theory, and says : 

"Conversion from sin is modified to a greater and less degree 
by knowledge ; knowledge of what regeneration is in its nature 
and results." "A heathen converted is not at once transformed 
by his regeneration into the same moral being that we have in 
that convert who has had Christian parents and Christian environ- 
ments." 551 "Living the sinless life therein described is not an ex- 

57 P. 369. 58 p. 380. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 251 



perience of some Christians merely, but it enters into the defini- 
tion of true Bible Christianity. It is a life made graciously pos- 
sible to and divinely imposed upon every regenerate believer from 
the very beginning of his new life in Christ." 50 "A life entirely 
free from all conscious sin, both internal and external, has been 
made possible by grace and is conditioned on repentance and 
faith ; and it is the privilege and duty of every regenerate child 
of God to live that sinless life." 00 "The ideal and normal state 
of the justified and regenerate believer is one of positive holiness 
and entire freedom from all known sin ; but the actual state of 
believers, from regeneration to death, is one that makes it con- 
sistent for them to pray daily not only for 'deliverance from evil,' 
but for the 'forgiveness of sins.' But has no one ever actually 
come up to this ideal state, and attained to all that belongs to the 
divine sonship? Only one, we answer, the L,ord Jesus Christ, 
in his human nature, and he never once confessed sin ; nor, 
though he prayed often, did he ever pray for the forgiveness of 
his sins. Why has no one else ever attained the ideally perfect 
state ? We answer : It is not because God has made it impos- 
sible, but simply moral free agents will not do all that they can 
do and ought to do." "But as God provided the atonement for the 
race as it was, and as he saw it ever would be, and not for a race 
that were morally all that they could be and ought to be, so Jesus 
Christ wrote an ideal prayer, not for those who were all they 
could be and ought to be, but for those whom he knew were not, 
and for all time to come would not be, all that they could be and 
all that they ought to be." 01 "If one Christian seems to be less 
perfect at his regeneration than another it is because one sinner 
differs from another in his antecedents and in what he is at the 
time of his regeneration, and not because God does a less thor- 
ough work for one than for another." 02 "Regeneration is, like 
all God's acts, perfect and complete of its kind, and that God 
therein does all that, in the nature of the case, needs to be done 
or can be done, instantaneously to effect the radical or thorough 
salvation of the penitent and believing sinner." 03 

Here is a description of the normal state of the re- 
generate. It is not "an experience of some Christians 
merely." It is the "duty of every regenerate child of 



& 9 P. 412. 60 p, 4 j 9 . 61 P. 457. 62 p. 3I7 . 63 p. 232. 



252 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



God to live that sinless life." This "normal state is one 
of positive holiness." Yet, he says, no one but Christ 
lived up to this standard. In one sentence he says it is 
the experience of not "some Christians merely ;" in an- 
other he says, no one but Jesus Christ measured up to this 
standard, or ever will live up to it. How can it be the 
experience of "some Christians" if Jesus was the only 
person who lived up to this standard? And then he as- 
signs the reason why it is not lived up to, "simply moral 
free agents will not do all that they can do and ought to 
do," which means that Christians could, if they would, 
live perfectly sinless from the dawn of their religious life, 
•jo that he need never pray, "Forgive us our sins." This, 
he says, is their "duty," and the reason assigned for their 
not doing so is because they "will not." That is, they 
deliberately choose not to do their duty — that which is 
now binding and obligatory upon them, yet they are re- 
generate Christians, but this disobedience makes them 
"abnormal," but does not cost them their regenerate state. 
Alas for such a theologian ! These abnormal Christians 
for which he has no Scriptural authority are rebels and 
not sons of God. He says these abnormal regenerate be- 
lievers are required to be sinless from the beginning. 
There is only one meaning possible to this statement, 
namely, free from all sin, "both internal and external." 
Yet in defining regeneration as dominion over sin, and 
sanctification as the uprooting of all sinfulness and sin 
"in sight," he leaves a "residue" of sin not in sight to 
be removed bv several instantaneous sanctifications, yet he 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 253 



insists that God requires sinlessness from the very be- 
ginning. 

SINLESSNESS. 
Sinlessness more properly means having been tested 
and never sinned. Consequently Mr. Wesley avoided 
the terms. According to this theologian, his regenera- 
tion and sanctification leaves the soul still sinful, then 
how can it be sinless "from the beginning?" He insists 
that it is the duty of every child of God to live that sin- 
less life — yet he says no one has, and God knows he will 
not, live this normal regenerate life (except Jesus Christ). 
If he denies the existence of sin in the spirit nature sub- 
sequent to regeneration and sanctification, if it has no 
existence in consciousness, and the soul is sinless when 
this twofold work is wrought, and capable of continu- 
ing so from the beginning, how is a regenerate-sanctified 
soul conscious of having dominion over sin? And what 
does he mean when he says "Experience proves that the 
regenerate Christian soon discovers that there is much 
that his own heart calls sinful in him and about him," if 
a regenerate soul is sinless from the beginning, and it 
is his duty to continue so? He falls into the common 
practice of misrepresenting the advocates of entire sanc- 
tification and then undertakes to disprove the misrepre- 
sentation. He says : 

MISREPRESENTATION. 

"One of the most common and significant of all definitions 
of entire sanctification is 'salvation from all sin.' As this phase 
carries along with it the implication that the 'salvation from sin' 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



that takes place in justification and regeneration is only partial 
and incomplete — that there is some sin, then seen and known from 
which the soul is not then saved — the definition is not free from 
objection." 64 

Will the Professor please quote a single standard 
theologian who teaches sanctification as a work subse- 
quent to regeneration who implies that any sin remains 
"then seen and known" at regeneration? Does he not 
know that they teach that the "discovery" of inbred sin 
is a surprise to them, and that they need to have it ex- 
plained to cause them not to lose their faith. If he is 
answering a few erratic teachers let him say so, but if 
he is answering Wesley, Clarke, Watson, Benson, Pope, 
Raymond, Miley, etc., I challenge him to find a hint at the 
existence of sin "then seen and known," in any of their 
writings, at the time of regeneration. 

Again, he says, "To see sin is, for a believer, to turn 
from it at once and to be delivered from it by divine 
grace at once." 65 What does he mean by "to see sin?" 
Does he mean the temptation, the act, or the manifesta- 
tion of "the sin of nature," or does he refer to infirmi- 
ties ? If he means temptation, he is correct. If he means 
infirmity it must be corrected by recognizing certain 
mental laws. If he means a sin of ignorance, the moral 
character of which is discovered later than the act, he 
omits forgiveness as essential ; but if he means a trans- 
gression of known law, he does not treat it Scripturally ; 
and if he means the sin of nature — depravity — his treat- 
ment will avail him nothing until he has experienced what 

64 P. 402. 65 p. 4 o6, 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 255 



he calls "a different act to cleanse and purify the sin- 
polluted nature." 

Again he misrepresents the advocates of a second 
distinct experience called entire sanctification. He says : 

"There is a strenuous effort on the part of those who hold 
the view of entire sanctification, now under consideration, to find 
a middle ground between sin and salvation, between serving God 
and serving the devil, between Divine acceptance and Divine con- 
demnation. They describe a kind of 'saved sinner' (that is, one 
who is not 'saved from all sin,' but 'saved in sin,' in some sin at 
least), a kind of 'condemned son' (that is, one who is unquestion- 
ably a child of God, but under condemnation on account of a 
residue of sin which still clings to him, or rather which he still 
clings to). But such a middle state is both illogical and un- 
scriptural." 66 

Again we challenge any such teaching being found 
in the standard writings of the Church. I know of none 
who even allow for the "semi-willful" sins he says is per- 
missible without forfeiting a place among the sons of 
God. Mr. Wesley's definition of a child of God is ac- 
cepted by them all. "Even babes in Christ are so far 
perfect as not to commit sin." They do not advocate "a 
middle ground between sin and salvation," but they say 
that the experience of the believer is not an abiding one 
because he is frequently overcome by his own deceiving 
nature. They frequently quote "He will save His people 
from their sins," and never advocate that the regenerate 
Christian is "saved in sin," but though "saved from sin" 
he is not saved from the existence of "inbred sin," which 
is the sin over which regeneration gives dominion. Nor 



66 P. 424. 



256 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



do they teach "a kind of condemned son," or that the 
condemnation "on account of the residue of sin" is per- 
sonal, but judicial. Nor do I know one who teaches that 
the believer willfully "clings to" his depravity; but they 
do teach that the unclean sed nature — including the af- 
fections — cling to those things under which they were 
developed, and need cleansing to change completely the 
currents of the affectional life, so that no desires shall 
arise from the affections contrary to the will of God. 
All this is wholly gratuitous and need not be answered. 
Again, he says : 

" 'These things write I unto you, that ye may not sin,' saith 
the apostle ; and yet he very well knew that sinning was an easy 
possibility to the children of God, and that many of them would 
sin. 'And if any man sin' — what then? Say to him that, in his 
merely regenerate state, this is normal and characteristic of the 
child of God."" 

Can he never cease to misrepresent? Who says that 
if a man sin in his regenerate state we are to say that 
"this is normal and characteristic of the child of God?" 
Again, I ask for a standard author who teaches any such 
thing. There is not one, and yet the book abounds with 
such misrepresentations. Either he has not read Meth- 
odist standards, or he is not representing them as he has 
read them. No writer recognized as a standard theolo- 
gian has ever said that sinning "is normal and charac- 
teristic of the child of God." 

Again he says, referring to Paul's statement in I Cor- 
inthians, iii, 1-3 : 

67 pp. 427, 428. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 



257 



"Can it be conceived that Paul might have stated explicitly, 
and in full, the truths which some theologians represent him as 
teaching implicitly and inferentially in this passage? If so, he 
would have expressed himself somewhat thus : 'And I, brethren, 
could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as 
unto babes in Christ; and indeed, my brethren, this is true of not 
you simply, but of all merely regenerate Christians ; they are as 
yet but babes in Christ; and therefore I can not speak unto them 
as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. For ye are yet carnal ; and 
indeed, my brethren, that is true not of you only, but of all merely 
regenerate believers. For whereas there is among you envying 
and strife and divisions, are ye not carnal and walk as men? And 
alas, my brethren, such sins in some form or other are character- 
istic of all merely regenerate believers.' Can we conceive of Paul 
as writing thus? Surely we can not. But this is exactly what 
those who advocate the theory of 'sin in believers' under review 
say is implied and taught here." "Again, can we conceive of 
Paul as injecting another parenthesis thus : 'And I, brethren, 
could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, 
as unto babes in Christ. . . . For ye are yet carnal ; and in- 
deed ye will and must continue to be carnal so long as ye are 
merely regenerate believers. Ye must experience another radical 
work of grace, a second cleansing; and then ye will cease at once 
to be babes in Christ, to be carnal, and will become spiritual. 
Then, and not till then, will envyings, strife, and divisions cease 
among you, for such things as these are "sins of believers ;" they 
are characteristic of, and incidental to, your merely regenerate 
state.' Now if it be true that this passage does furnish Scriptural 
proof of such a doctrine of 'sin in believers' as that set forth 
above, then may we consistently inject into it just such statements 
as are found above. And if that was the apostle's thought, it is 
inconceivable that he should have failed to state it." 6S 

Sometimes he reasons differently. He says : 

"If it be true, therefore, that the Bible warrants the foregoing 
analysis of salvation into distinct and separate elements, it is also 
true that the Bible in many places utterly ignores its own distinc- 
tions. . . . This should warn us against making overnice 



68 Pp. 364, 365. 
17 



258 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



refinements in doctrine and being too confident and dogmatic in 
our distinctions and definitions of the elements of salvation." 69 

The use of the word "merely" as a prefix to regen- 
erate in the passages quoted, is intended as a slur upon 
those who use the word regenerate in distinction from 
the entirely sanctified. Dr. Huntington and others so 
use it. It is intended to convey the idea that those who 
teach a second distinct work in sanctification minify re- 
generation to do so. We have already shown that these 
writers are the ones who minify regeneration, and allow 
for certain sins forbidden by the Word of God. It is 
rarely used by scholars, and is usually misleading when 
used. He can not prove his paraphases true. No stand- 
ard theologian teaches that envying, strifes, and divi- 
sions in "some form or other," are characteristic of all 
regenerate believers. Nor does a sound exegesis sustain 
his reasoning as we will later show. The implication 
that those Corinthians were all carnal, and not at all spir- 
itual, and would not be until they experienced "another 
radical work of grace, a second cleansing," is purely gra- 
tuitous. Paul never addressed carnal unregenerate sin- 
ners as "brethren in the Lord." Though carnal, they 
were brethren, and the true meaning of the word must 
be determined by the context. The "you" who are carnal 
Paul fed with milk and not with meat, because they were 
yet carnal. He would not feed unregenerate sinners with 
anything. There can be no question as to their regenera- 
tion. Paul says they were washed, sanctified. Justified 

69 P. 298. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 259 



in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of the 
Lord. He brings out the fact so clearly taught by the 
advocates of a second experience of entire sanctification, 
that those who are not thus sanctified are very likely to 
be overcome by the depravity of their nature and commit 
those sins which are theirs by inheritance. In no sense 
do the advocates of a second distinct work of entire sanc- 
tification hold that they are regenerate while manifesting 
those sins, but fallen from grace, and need renewal, and 
then the second grace. Though "babes" they were not 
unregenerate, but for the time being not in favor with 
God. The theory that a regenerate soul that sins needs 
another regeneration is not taught in the Scriptures; 
they need restoration. One never thinks of a second, 
third, fourth, etc., regeneration, but frequently those who 
have been regenerated need restoration from a fallen state. 
They did not retain their life because of these strifes, 
envies, divisions, though they were caused by religious 
and ecclesiastical questions. The whole Church was care- 
less in dealing with the fornicator, and Paul condemns 
them for their carelessness, but at the same time com- 
mends them for qualities that are distinctively spiritual. 

He says "it is inconceivable that Paul should have 
failed to state it," if they were all carnal until they re- 
ceived a second cleansing. Let us apply his method of 
reasoning. He insists that if all regenerate believers are 
carnal Paul would not have failed to state it, and says 
some of the Corinthian Church were carnal, and that Paul 
meant them when he referred to the strifes, envy, divi- 



26o METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



sions, etc. Let us paraphrase. And I, knowing that 
some of you are not brethren, clearly distinguish between 
those who are brethren and those who are carnal, for 
there are no carnal brethren. I write unto carnal profess- 
ors, I can not even feed you with milk for ye are "dead 
in trespasses and sins ;" ye are not only "yet carnal," but 
altogether carnal, for there is no carnality in the regen- 
erate. The cause of your strife is "ministers through 
whom" you professed to believe. I write not these things 
to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved "hypo- 
critical children," for in Christ Jesus I "thought I begat 
you through the Gospel." If this, according to Professor 
Tillett, was the apostle's thought, "it is inconceivable that 
Paul should have failed to state it." The above is the 
consequence of his own method of reasoning. With him, 
Paul's own converts, his "beloved children" to whom he 
writes not to "shame" them, but "admonish" them, are 
either hypocrites or unregenerate men. Let him admit 
the depravity Methodism has always taught and he is at 
once relieved of his dilemma. These regenerate believers 
were "yet (in some measure) carnal," when it expressed 
itself it was in this form. Carnality will express itself 
when grace is low in the form in which it is inherent. 
These "babes" had not made the progress they should, 
therefore, they were exceedingly susceptible to yielding 
to their carnality — a universal fact. This sinning and 
repenting, which is the best thing he teaches in his book, 
is characteristic of the most of spiritual life in the Church, 
but neither Methodism, nor Scripture, nor the advocates 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 261 



of a second distinct work insist this is essential, yet it is 
universal where normal healthy advance is for any rea- 
son retarded. Even if all he teaches is true concerning 
this Epistle, the existence of the strife, envy, divisions, 
etc., is a proof of carnality. Now, let him explain how 
Paul, addressing those carnal persons, calls them his 
"beloved children." 

EXEGESIS. 
In his exegesis of Galatians v, 17, he says: 

"Now we do not believe that the aspostle is 'describing the 
state of believers in general when he uses these words,' but, on 
the contrary, the state of the unregenerate. It is the unconverted 
man alone that is so dominated by the carnal nature that he can 
not do the things which the Spirit of God convinces him he ought 
to do, and which he would do. Even if we allow that there are 
two contrary principles in the regenerate man — and we see no 
serious objection to allowing this — we must at least insist that 
the spiritual nature dominates the fleshly nature, and that the 
regenerate man, under the guidance and help of the Holy Spirit, 
can and does do the things he would." 70 

He introduces a term here which is unwarranted, 
namely, "ought," the reading is "that ye may not do the 
things ye would." The apostle does not concede that 
any regenerate man walks after the flesh and remains 
regenerate, but he does teach that the man who is yet in 
possession of the "flesh," though he does not obey it, 
"may not do the things that he would." The difference 
is here. What he "ought" to do is present duty, obliga- 
tory and mandatory, and should and can now be done. 
What he "would" do if he were not "yet carnal" or had 



70 p. 368. 



262 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



not the lust of the flesh — those abnormal desires of the 
flesh — to contend with and overcome, is quite another 
thing. To not do what one "ought" to do produces con- 
demnation. To not do what one otherwise "would" do, 
if differently conditioned, brings deep regret. It is the 
latter Paul is dealing with, and the Professor should not 
load down his argument with the word "ought." It is 
the two forces in conflict independent of all decisions on 
the part of the man which Paul refers to; the Spirit in 
the regenerate contending with the flesh. The warfare 
is not between the spirit of the man and the flesh, but 
the Spirit of God and the flesh, leaving the man to de- 
termine which shall conquer and lead him. "The Spirit 
desires to hinder you from accomplishing the things of 
the flesh (i. e., those which the flesh desires to accom- 
plish) ; on the other hand, the flesh antagonizes you when 
you are eager to do the things of the Spirit." The con- 
flict is the same as Romans vii, 25, but the subject is dif- 
ferent ; one is under the dominion of sin, the other is 
partially held by the presence of the power whose domin- 
ion regeneration has broken. Does he deny the exist- 
ence of carnality in the regenerate? What is "the sin of 
nature — depravity" — of which he frequently refers, but 
carnality? At least Paul so understood it. Can he for a 
moment believe that one is as free to do what he would 
with this depravity as without it? If he is, then depravity 
is no special disadvantage, and its removal instantaneously 
or gradually is of little importance. 

In Romans vii, the unregenerate man does the things 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 263 



he would not. In Galatians v, the regenerate man does 
not the things he would. The cause is the same, but 
the degree of bondage is different. Ye may not do the 
things that ye would, does not mean that ye do the things 
ye would not ; the difference between a regenerate and an 
unregenerate man. 

A CONUNDRUM. 

Every opposer of holiness as a distinct experience 

subsequent to regeneration has a conundrum to submit 

which he thinks ends all controversy, and rules the second 

experience out of court. The Professor has his. He says : 

"Inasmuch as in the entirely sanctified original or inbred sin 
has been entirely destroyed, it can no more be in them even 
though they fall away from their sanctified state. And supposing 
that one entirely sanctified should fall into the state, not of the 
unregenerate, but of the 'regenerate unsanctified,' it is pertinent 
to inquire what indwelling sin then remains in him. Not 'ac- 
quired depravity' that was taken away, according to this theory, 
by regeneration ; not original sin — that was entirely destroyed 
by his 'sanctification,' and no subsequent fall could bring that 
back again. He is then without any sin in him, and yet he is 
unsanctified." 71 

A splendid guess that! Profound reasoning. It 
should send the second blessing theory to limbo, and it 
would with many an ignorant soul, and no doubt be per- 
plexing to those who have the experience without a clear 
philosophy of it. Bravo ! Professor. Speculation, and 
neither reason nor experience comes to your rescue. Vain 
speculation. If some of your premises were true it would 
be splendid reasoning. Had you traveled this pathway 



« p. 416. 



264 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



with bent head and bleeding heart, your statement would 
be valuable as an experience, and could be somewhere 
related to a sound philosophy of the Christian life. But, 
alas ! it is none of these. 

In the first place, where is the proof that an entirely 
sanctified soul in whose nature "original or inbred sin" 
has been destroyed, falls away into a "regenerate, unsanc- 
tified" state? The Professor does not believe in such a 
state, he says that regeneration and sanctification are 
coterminous, therefore, he can not believe in such a state. 
Where does he get the idea, then, that one entirely sanc- 
tified falls into a "regenerate unsanctified state?" Such 
a soul must fall by omission or commission, for his faith 
and love are perfect and he would not fall so as to lose 
his sanctification by any infirmity of mind or flesh. The 
will and heart being normal they do not commit sin, the 
heart being pure it is cleansed from original sin. There 
is only one possibility in such a case, that is to disobey. 
So his suppositious case falls to the ground. Second, the 
act of sin which would forfeit purity, holiness, entire sanc- 
tification, would be purely subjective first, and it would 
defile the nature before the act expressing the defilement 
could be known. The depravities of mind and body still 
retained after entire sanctification, intense or otherwise, 
according to the manner and time of their development, 
would be the channels through which the sin would be 
manifest and find its expression. This sameness of form 
of manifestation leads frequently to the belief that it was 
only dormant by virtue of its manifestation through a 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 



265 



familiar channel. Sin itself is an act of choice producing 
an attitude of self toward moral law. This attitude of 
self may become the dominant power governing one's 
life. The hereditary form is specific, the sin is universal. 
The groovings of mind and body as the channels through 
which sin manifests itself, makes the returning manifes- 
tation similar to all former manifestations so that a con- 
scious defilement of the pure soul can alone account for 
the returning manifestations of that which had consciously 
ceased with the divine act of sanctification. Without this 
conscious act, defilement could not exist, and without the 
defilement the manifestations could not, and do not exist. 
Without the manifestations there are no evidences of a 
''fall ;" therefore, the Professor's suppositious case falls 
to the ground. 

It is hardly fair to a reader to place him where he 
must accept a word in its full meanings, when it has 
more than one, if the reasoning does not admit of its 
several meanings. Original sin means more than the 
first sin. Were we to adhere to this meaning we would 
have to look to Satan for original sin instead of to Adam. 
Original sin may be the original act, but it implies an 
act which can not be repeated in the form which Adam 
stands towards it. He not only committed an act which 
produced personal guilt and tainted his own nature, but 
he entailed a depraved nature upon the whole race. When 
we are sanctified wholly it does not destroy the method of 
procreating, nor bestow a purified, entirely sanctified 
spirit to our offspring. The sanctification of our natures 



266 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



is gracious, a work wrought directly by the Spirit of 
God, and it is conditioned and dependent. We may be- 
stow an exalted natural type as the result of grace work- 
ing upon our natures, but spiritual life is not procreated, 
in every instance it is the gift of God. In the light of 
these facts, "no subsequent fall could bring back that 
again" which was removed in entire sanctification. But 
personal depravity as the result of unholy choice may re- 
turn, and need not necessarily be as intense as that from 
which one was delivered as the type inherited by pro- 
creation. The entrance of the defilement is a fact of con- 
sciousness, as is also the loss of purity, and few souls who 
have really experienced sanctification can long endure 
the change without going very far away from God, or 
hastening to the cleansing fountain which again restores 
the spotless purity. The Professor has nothing on which 
to base his speculation. He does not believe that any one 
is "entirely sanctified" in this life. He has only a theory. 
He says the entire removal of depravity, if "it reaches the 
zero point" is "probably known only to the omniscient 
mind of God," "it is not a subject of consciousness." Then 
entire sanctification can not be, unless it is conterminous 
with original sin. 

Personally, I have never taught "acquired depravity" 
as something distinct from inherent depravity. I have 
only seen the possibility of an intenser, and not a sep- 
arate depravity called "acquired" as the result of personal 
sin ; therefore, with me, the statement about acquired de- 
pravity being removed at regeneration, or the only de- 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 267 



pravity remaining after regeneration, has no value what- 
ever. To one who understands the answer given above 
to the question about the pertinence of the inquiry "What 
indwelling sin then remains in him?" the statement 
"He is then without any sin in him and yet he is unsanc- 
tified," can have no force. It was a good guess, but only 
a guess. He says : 

"The point we must now decide is this : Does the Bible teach, 
and Christian experience confirm the doctrine, that there is, sub- 
sequent to regeneration, a second radical and instantaneous work 
of Divine grace within and upon the moral nature of the regener- 
ate believer, which must take place before death in order to his 
complete salvation from all sin? That this is the real and vital 
point at issue between the varying theories of 'sanctification' can, 
we think, be clearly shown. It is universally conceded that regen- 
eration is a 'radical, instantaneous, and necessary work of Divine 
grace within and upon the moral nature of man.' The question 
here is whether a second work of this kind enters into the ideal 
of Christian life and experience which is set before us. It is not 
a question as to whether some regenerate Christians do not need 
a 'second radical and instantaneous work of grace,' for it would 
be conceded that many who claim to be regenerate do both need 
and experience such a work; and, having experienced it, they will 
call it 'sanctification' or 'the second blessing,' or whatever else 
they are taught by their spiritual guides and teachers to call it ; 
but the question is whether all truly regenerate persons must ex- 
perience such a work in order to be saved from all sin and to 
attain perfect love." 72 

Yes, the real vital point at issue is "whether a second 
work" enters into the ideal Christian life. His statement 
that "it is universally conceded that regeneration" is a 
"radical, instantaneous, and necessary work of divine 
grace" is rather sweeping. It would be nearer the bounds 



72 Pp. 406, 407. 



268 METHODIST THEOLOGY . 



if he had said it is generally conceded ; quite a few believe 
regeneration is evolutionary and neither radical nor in- 
stantaneous. As to the distinction between "some regen- 
erate Christians" and "truly regenerate persons" there 
is no such distinction in fact, and it is utterly unscrip- 
tural. The statement that "many who claim to be regen- 
erated do need and experience a second radical and in- 
stantaneous work of grace" is conceding the point in 
question. If they are conscious that it is a second expe- 
rience, they must have had a first experience. He says, 
"having experienced it they will call it 'sanctification' or 
the 'second blessing,' or whatever else they are taught by 
their spiritual guides and teachers to call it." One would 
think the persons above referred to came from the most 
ignorant classes, incapable of personally studying the 
Word, and that their teachers were incapable of expound- 
ing it; and, consequently both are deceived. Were this 
true the "many who both need and experience such a 
work" have the full benefit of "a second, radical, instan- 
taneous work of grace." Let us see who those are who 
are among those who claim to be regenerated, but said 
they both needed and experienced this second work : Adam 
Clarke, John Fletcher; Bishops Asbury, McKendree, 
Whatcoat, Coke, Scott, Simpson, Janes, Hamline, Rob- 
erts, George, Peck, Foster, Thomson, Ninde, Mallalieu, 
Joyce, and Key; W. L. Watkinson, William and Cath- 
arine Booth, President Mahan, Wilbur Fisk, Wayland, 
Amanda Smith, Francis Upham, Tovick Pierce, Madam 
Guyon, Mrs. Jonathan Edwards, Margaret Bottome, 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 269 



Alfred Cookman, Peter Akers, James Caughey, Hugh 
Price Hughes, William Arthur, William Butler; Drs. 
Hanlon, Fisk, Olin, Hibbard, Stevens, Ridgway, Dugan 
Clarke, Daniel Steele, William Taylor, Jabez Bunting; 
such exegetes as Meyer, Miiller, Neander, Tholuck, Ewald, 
etc., and what shall I say more? Thousands of intelli- 
gent lesser lights have been convicted and sought and ob- 
tained this "second blessing properly so-called" through a 
prayerful study of God's Word without teachers giving it 
any name. They called it sanctification because it was 
that they sought as instructed by the Word of God. Will 
Professor Tillett frankly take the consequences of his 
inference and say that these teachers, linguists, world-re- 
nowned scholars, and spiritual leaders of the first rank 
only "claimed to be regenerate," but were deceived, and 
the "second radical, instantaneous work" of which they 
sung, prayed, preached and taught was only their true 
regeneration? Their regeneration did all for them the 
Scriptures promise. Who were "their spiritual guides 
and teachers" who taught them to call their second expe- 
rience "entire sanctification?" To what length one may 
go to sustain a mere theory which would instantly disap- 
pear under the consciousness of the reality. These wit- 
nesses have influenced thousands where Professor Tillett 
influences his tens, and he must be treading upon very 
safe ground to sustain himself against their testimony. 

Defining sanctification he says it "refers to that work 
of the Holy Spirit in co-operation with the regenerate 
spirit which separates the soul from sin, and carries on 



2 7 o METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



and completes the work begun in regeneration." 73 It 
can not be true, then, that regeneration is the work 
"which separates the soul from sin." But he teaches 
that sanctification is coterminous with regeneration ; then 
it can not be a work of "co-operation." He does not be- 
lieve that any person is saved from all sin and made per- 
fect in love in regeneration. Therefore, regeneration 
does not save from all sin. He limits its work to saving 
from all sin "in sight." In defining regeneration, he 
says, it "has to do exclusively with the sin of nature — 
original sin and the habitus of sin, or hereditary and ac- 
quired depravity." He says "experience proves that the 
regenerate Christian soon discovers that there is much 
that his own heart calls sinful in him and about him after 
his conversion, and that, instead of having then won the 
final victory over all sin, only the ascendency over sin 
was secured, and the real battle with sin is then but truly 
begun." The regenerate, then, are sinful. The ques- 
tion now left is : Is there an instantaneous, radical work 
of removal of all sin subsequent to regeneration? The 
previous array of witnesses says there is. Professor Til- 
lett says they are mistaken. He, however, does not dis- 
pose of all sin — original sin — anywhere in his theory. He 
denies its sudden and radical removal on Scriptural 
grounds, and strange to say, without a hint of Scripture, 
insists that an instantaneous work must be wrought in 
death. He says, "We seem driven to the conclusion that 
if any considerable number of average Christians should 

73 P. 130. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 



271 



be killed suddenly, as if by lightning, and go at once to 
heaven, they would be more perfect in heaven than they 
were at death." "But the Scripture 'proof texts' are 
wanting for establishing the doctrine that "the souls of 
believers are at death made perfect in holiness," and that 
death is "to free them perfectly from sin." 74 

One vital fact the Professor ignores entirely, viz. : No 
one can be an "average Christian" and be in the attitude 
of disobedience to the known will of God. Methodism 
has always taught that God reveals to the earnest believer 
the true nature of depravity by its conflict with the re- 
generate life, and that awakens a desire for complete de- 
liverance from the inbeing as well as the guilt of sin, the 
dominion of which was broken by regeneration. The con- 
secration required to comply with this demand awakens 
the antagonism of the "yet carnal" part of man, and fre- 
quently causes him to refuse to obey the clear light, walk- 
ing in compliance with which is essential to the blood of 
Jesus Christ cleansing us f 10m all sin. This has produced 
the mass of backsliders found everywhere to-day, and if 
they were suddenly killed by lightning they would enter 
eternity as rebellious souls and not as obedient children 
of God. It is such teaching as the Professor sets forth 
that hinders millions from entering into the full liberty 
of the sons of God. Many are strenuously overcoming 
by grace what God has made ample provision to have re- 
moved, expecting at death the deliverance that Jesus has 
provided for present experience in his own precious blood, 
74 pp. 474-476. 



272 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



And they will obtain that deliverance because they are not 
disobeying light, and are entitled to all the benefits Christ 
has secured to believers. The only bar to heavenly pos- 
sessions is the presence of sin. No other defect can pre- 
vent admittance there, every other defect is lack and not 
antagonism, and all eternity can supply that lack. 

ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION. 
lie defines entire sanctification thus : 

"A state of sinlessness or 'entire sanctification.' " 75 

"That each grace singly and all of them together have reached 
a state of ripeness and maturity, it means complete and perfect 
in all respects." 1 * 

"Sinlessness, entire holiness, the perfect life, that is the ever- 
advancing goal that is ahead of the regenerate child of God, and 
the progressive Divine-human work by which it is attained is what 
in most systems of theology is designated as sanctification." 77 

''To place the adjective 'entire' before the word 'sanctifi- 
cation,' and then make 'entire sanctification' represent a work 
subsequent to regeneration, by which the believer is 'saved from 
all sin,' may be all right so far as theology is concerned — for 
theology must coin many terms to represent its doctrines — but it 
must be borne in mind that such use of the two words together 
can no more claim to be Scriptural, than to make the simple word 
'sanctification' represent such a doctrinal idea. If the term 'sanc- 
tification' or 'holiness,' therefore, whether used singly or preceded 
by 'entire" be used to designate the doctrine of the possible sin- 
lessness and perfection of a believer, Ave should be careful to dis- 
tinguish between the doctrine so designated and the meaning of 
the word, as defined above, in its strictly Scriptural sense." 73 

"i Thessalonians v, 23 : 'And the very God of peace sanctify 
you wholly.' Here the entire emphasis is on the word 'wholly' 
(holoteleis) which is not an adverb, but an adjective; it is a com- 
pound adjective, made up of two words, 'whole' (holos) and 
'perfect' (telos). It means that wholeness or entireness or com- 



75 p. 402. 



TO P. 405. 77 p. I3 8. 78 p. 263. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 273 



pleteness that is reached only at the end (telos) of a process; it 
means 'entire and final perfection,' and, as used here, it indicates 
that perfection admits of degrees." 79 

"If we have rightly interpreted these Scriptures, they teach 
that living the sinless and perfect life therein described is not an 
experience of some Christians merely, but it enters into the very 
definition to true Bible Christianity. It is a life made graciously 
possible to and divinely imposed upon every regenerate believer 
from the very beginning of his new life in Christ. To live that 
life is to 'perfect holiness in the fear of God.' " so 

"The blessing which some believers experience subsequent 
to their regeneration, whether it be a second blessing or 'the sec- 
ond blessing,' certainly marks a mighty change for good in their 
spiritual lives, and must therefore come from God." "Every one 
who is conscious of not being saved from all sin should seek and 
obtain immediate and instantaneous deliverance therefrom in 
penitence and faith, and this regardless of whether he considers 
that he has been previously regenerated or not." "It is a matter 
of secondary importance by what name we designate any work of 
grace, so long as we are being saved from all sin, made holy, 
perfect." 81 

"Some few have identified the higher life with a special and 
instantaneous experience, and made it a second radical work of 
Divine grace like regeneration, extirpating all sin, an experience 
which, if maintained, renders any subsequent experience of like 
nature unnecessary." 82 

"Is there no essential difference between the entirely sancti- 
fied of earth and the saved of heaven." 

If sinlessness means never having sinned, then entire 
sanctification is never experienced by any fallen creature. 
If entire sanctification means perfect conformity to the 
perfect law and will of God, then it is not possible in this 
life. This author teaches that this sinlessness is not ob- 
tained in this life. He says, "Sinlessness, entire holiness, 
the perfect life — that is the ever-advancing goal that is 



™ Pp. 266, 267. 80 p. 4I2 . 81 p. 4 j 7 . 82 p. 420. 

18 



274 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



ahead of the regenerate child of God." 83 If it is the ever- 
advancing goal it is never reached. But he contradicts 
himself in this sentence, "We now come to consider the 
possibilities of the believer in the opposite direction, that 
of sinlessness and holiness, and here, whatever is possi- 
ble to a believer is not only his privilege, but his duty." 84 
Sinlessness is not possible in this life, according to this 
writer, consequently it is neither a privilege nor a duty. 
Yet he undertakes to teach an indefinite "entire sancti- 
fication." He identifies it with "Christian perfection." 
He says it is "quite impossible to keep these two phases 
or elements of Christian perfection (the negative, 'sinless- 
ness,' and the positive 'completeness' altogether separ- 
ate." 85 "We call that future life upon which the regen- 
erate believer enters at death the sinless life." 86 I can 
not see how any one can take these statements on sinless- 
ness and make anything else out of them other than it is 
not experienced in this life, and as entire sanctification 
is the completing process by which all sin is removed, 
entire sanctification is not experienced in this life. 

As to "each grace singly and all of them together hav- 
ing reached a state of ripeness and maturity," this is in- 
definite. What is maturity of grace? When is grace 
mature? What about the folks killed suddenly by the 
lightning? and millions of others, and those who do not 
have time for grace to mature between regeneration and 
death ? Grace is never mature. It may be perfect in the 



83 P. 138. 84 p. 399> 85 p. 402 . 86 p. 490. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 275 



sense that its antithesis does not exist, but in no other 
sense forever. 

He quotes a list of passages : 1 John iii, 5, 8, 9 ; Rom. 
vi, 6; Gal. v, 24; 1 John, i, 7, 9; 2 Tim. ii, 21 ; Titus ii, 
14; Heb. x, 14; 1 Thess. iv, 3 ; 1 Thess. v, 23; Heb. xiii, 
12 and xii, 14; 1 Peter i, 16; John xvii, 17, 19; 1 Thess. 
iii, 12, 13, — none of them referring to the act by which 
this work is wrought ; and then says, "Do these Scriptures 
teach instantaneous sanctification? That entire sancti- 
fication, holiness, salvation from all sin, perfection, are 
all included in that ideal of religion which is set before us 
in these passages of Scripture, no one can doubt." 87 Why 
did he not quote some passages referring to the process, 
to discover whether the work of entire sanctification is 
instantaneous? I submit this proposition. Everything 
which is through faith is in the present tense and instan- 
taneous. It is only necessary to examine some of these 
passages to see the fallacy of his reasoning. Take "Our 
old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might 
be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin/' 
Rom. vi, 6. Is crucifixion a continuous process ultimately 
completed when spiritual maturity is reached, but under 
no circumstances reached before the end of this life? 
Paul speaks of it as an accomplished fact. "They that 
are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and 
lusts." All spiritual blessings are received by faith ; then 
they are inevitably instantaneous. 

He fights his great battle with I Thess. v, 23. "And 

g 7 Pp. 410, 411. 



276 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 

the very God of peace sanctify you wholly." He says 
the word "wholly" (holoteleis) is not an adverb, but an 
adjective. Dr. Heinrich Meyer, pronounced by President 
D wight of Yale University to be the "greatest New Tes- 
tament exegete living," of whom Dr. Phillip Schafjf says 
he is the "prince of exegetes," says of this word wholly, 
"it is an adverb of quantity, meaning in your entire ex- 
tent — through and through." This arcords with the 
translation of the German Bible — "through and through." 
Dr. Strong sustains the same rendering. Dr. Daniel 
Steele, S. T. D., says, "i Thess. v, 23, is a text which 
implies that the regenerate are not entirely purified, and 
that they may be in answer to prayer. . . . There is 
an important word, holoteleis, which is found nowhere 
else in the New Testament, nor in the Septuagint. It is 
an adjective in form with an adverbial meaning (Knhncr, 
264-3). ^ Paul intended to pray that the Thessalonians 
might all be sanctified, there were three every-day adjec- 
tives which he might have used to express "all." He 
employed this unique term, meaning 'wholly to the end/ 
or 'quite completely,' because he had realized in his own 
experience the uttermost sanctification, and he saw that 
it was the privilege of every believer." "The body is 
sanctified wholly when its members are used by the recti- 
fied will only as instruments of righteousness unto God." 
Of Rom. vi, 6, he says : "The aorist here teaches the 
possibility of an instantaneous death-stroke to inbred sin, 
and that there is no need of a slow and painful process, 
lingering till physical death or purgatorial fires end the 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 277 



torment." "We have looked in vain for one of the verbs 
denoting sanctification or perfection in the imperfect 
tense (which would teach a progressive work). The verb 
katharizo and hagnizo, to purify, is aorist, or perfect, as is 
also hagiazo. Our inference is that the energy of the 
Holy Spirit in the work of entire sanctification, however 
long the preparation, is put Forth at a stroke by a 
momentary act. This is corroborated by the universal 
testimony of those who have experienced this grace." 

This sinless life that he says with one breath is "the 
ever advancing goal that is ahead of the regenerate child 
of God," a "progressive divine-human work," in another 
breath he says it is "made graciously possible to and 
divinely imposed upon every regenerate believer from 
the very beginning of his new life in Christ ;" it "is not 
only his privilege but his duty to live this life of "sinless- 
ness and holiness." What is my duty is obligatory upon 
me now, then it can not be a progressive divine-human 
work. He makes Christian perfection to consist of sin- 
lessness and completeness — accordingly there is no such 
thing as Christian perfection in this life. 

CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 

He says : 

"The perfect Christian will take his motto from the noblest 
of all inspired men, who said of himself when he was ready to be 
offered and the time of his departure was almost at hand : 'Not 
as though I had already attained, either were already perfect ; 
but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also 
I am apprehended of Christ Jesus,' etc. . . . 'Let us therefore, 
as many as be perfect, be thus minded.' (Phil, iii 4 12-15.) This 



278 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



is Inspiration's perfect definition of progressive perfection ; a 
sin-forsaking, God-pursning soul, who, ever conscious of his own 
imperfection, is ever pressing forward toward an ever-advancing 
goal that keeps ever ahead of him." ss 

''To free the justified and regenerated believer from abso- 
lutely everything to which the word 'sinful' may be consistently 
applied ; and to bring him into the possession of every personal 
attribute to which the word 'holy' should be applied, and to a state 
in which perfect love for God and man shall reign supreme in 
his heart and life — that is the work of Divine grace, which may 
for our present purpose serve to define Christian perfection. This 
work is one of co-operation between God and man ; the believer 
must do his part, and God will do His. We have then: (i) The 
work of Christian perfection; (a) negative, getting rid of all sin 
and sinfulness — discovering sin hitherto unseen and unknown, 
whether of omission or commission, and getting rid of it, and sup- 
pressing, to the point of utter extinction, whatever residue of 
'depravity' may abide after regeneration; (b) positive, attaining 
all the moral virtues and Christian graces that are necessasy to 
completeness in Christ." 89 

''The word used for perfect ( teles) being one that indicates 
final perfection as distinct from an earlier perfection." 90 

"As Dr. Thayer has pointed out in his New Testament Lex- 
icon the word for perfection, which is here translated 'entire' 
(holokleros) means that 'no grace which ought to be in a Chris- 
tian man is wanting,' and in that sense a believer may be perfect 
from the moment of his conversion." 91 

"Indeed, it is not only a possibility and a privilege, but an 
imperative duty to live the life of Christian perfection. . . . 
Nor is it an ideal that is impossible of realization." 92 

"Being a true Christian and having Christian perfection are 
one and the same thing." 93 

"All the power of God in heaven is pledged to help the man 
who is doing his very best — and that is Christian perfection." 

"Christ is our perfect model, and Christian perfection is noth- 
ing more nor less than conformity to Christ. To have 'the mind 
that was in Christ Jesus,' and to do in each event of life that 
which Christ would do, were He in our place, is to be perfect." 94 



p. 326. 89 p. 4 oi. 90 p. 4 o 4 . 91 p. 405. 92 P. 437. 

83 P. 439. 94 P. 440. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 279 



"The soul that is perfect is a Spirit-filled soul." 95 
"Many seem to think that it is impossible for any human 
being to realize the ideal of perfection fixed by Christ. But when 
Christ says, 'Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which 
is in heaven is perfect,' the words 'even as' do not refer to de- 
gree as if the creature were commanded to be as perfect in de- 
gree as his Creator. ... It means that he is to act in every 
relation and detail of life as God would have him act, and indeed 
just as God does act in the particulars named." 96 "That is, the 
Christian man who loves and treats his enemies just as God does 
his enemies, is, in that one particular as perfect as his Father 
in heaven. And if in every particular and detail of life the Chris- 
tian does what God does, or what God would have him do — in 
other words, what Christ himself would do were he in the same 
circumstances — then he is a perfect Christian and is fulfilling the 
divine injunction to be perfect. This highest precept of the Gos- 
pel concerning individuaf perfection, it will thus be seen, points, 
not to any subjective instantaneous experience, but to an ethical 
perfection of daily life, made possible by practicing the law of 
love. Every true child of God can, and should, and must do 
this." 97 

"That is, the perfect man is defined as the man who, con- 
scious of his own imperfection, is always pressing forward to 
higher heights in love, holier regions in saintliness, deeper depths 
in sacrifice, and wider fields in service for God and man." 93 

"Some professing Christians seem to be saintly 'in spots,' 
seem to exercise some virtues to perfection, while others are en- 
tirely wanting in their lives." 99 "Some professing Christians are 
saintly by spells." 100 

"The love that perfects must itself be perfect. By saying that 
love is perfect we simply mean to affirm its soleness and su- 
premacy in man's heart and life." "In the interpretation of 
heaven that love is perfect which carries with it the whole man 
and all that he has and is. Its perfection is negative when no 
other object — that is, no creature, receives it apart from God or 
in comparison of him ; and it is positive when the utmost strength 
of the faculties, in the measure and according to the degree of 
their possibility on earth, is set on him." 101 



95 p. 441. 
100 p. 446. 



96 p. 441. 97 p. 442. 98 p. 444. "P. 445. 
101 P- 453- 



28o METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



"The soul that is truly justified and born from above is saved 
from all sin then seen and known, is holy, sanctified, perfect — 
perfect, that is, as a child, and his growth may continue to be 
perfect at every stage ; and while he may in a sense reach Chris- 
tian maturity, yet his spiritual growth will 'go on unto perfection' 
forever. Perfection is a present law of life as well as an ever- 
advancing goal to every regenerate child of God." 102 

"God has made perfection (that is, Christian perfection, as 
it is defined in the Bible) to be our privilege and our duty." 103 

"His aspirations and prayers and ceaseless activities after per- 
fection are the proof that he is perfect." 104 

"Nothing less than perfection, then, is the ideal of character 
and conduct set before the regenerate believer in the Bible as not 
only possible to him, but his privilege and his duty." 105 

"And yet, even though this be realized, there is still another 
different and higher perfection ; that of perfect growth, ending 
in the perfection of maturity." "Let no Christian think that per- 
fection is going to come to him bodily and instantaneously in one 
great blessing from heaven." "Christian perfection is ethical ; it 
ir. living perfectly free from every sin and in the perfect dis- 
charge of every duty. And that life is made possible by divine 
grace, and it is his privilege and duty from the very moment of 
his conversion." 100 "There is no denying the fact that most be- 
lievers are exceedingly imperfect, both before and when they come 
to their deathbeds." 107 "We can be made perfect here only by 
suffering." 103 "Even our highest perfection here is but imper- 
fection compared with the holiness and perfection of the saints 
in heaven." 109 "Is there now, let me ask, any doctrine of Meth- 
odism . . . which has been a kind of 'storm center' in Meth- 
odist theology from the very beginning of its existence as a re- 
ligious organization? Most surely there is, and has always been, 
one — and only one — the doctrine of 'sanctification' or 'Christian 
perfection.' " n0 

"Mr. Wesley never seemed to have realized that in adopting 
the theory of instantaneous sanctification with all its concomi- 
tants, he was introducing an element into his doctrine of Chris- 



102 P. 455. 103 p. 45 8. 104 p. 463. 105 p. 463. 106 p. 464. 

107 P. 473 . 108 p. 494 . 109 p. 495. nop. 507. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 281 



tian perfection that was logically and theologically irreconcilable 
with the doctrine which he had been preaching from the be- 
ginning of his ministry." 111 

These extended quotations cover all his definitions of 
Christian perfection. He says the motto of the perfect 
Christian is, "Not as though I had already attained, either 
were already perfect; but I follow after, if that I may 
apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ 
Jesus. . . . Let us, therefore, as many as be perfect, 
be thus minded." Phil, hi, 12, 15. Of these passages, 
Dr. Steele says : "Let us now see what he means when 
he denies that he is already made perfect. The Revised 
Version 'made perfect,' or perfected, is a more accurate 
translation of the original than the adjective 'perfect' 
of the Authorized Version. All the Greek lexicons and 
annotators insist that this verb 'made perfect' here sig- 
nifies 'complete my course,' just as the same verb is used 
by our Lord Jesus Christ in Luke xiii, 32. 'The third 
day I shall be perfected.' Does Jesus here disclaim moral 
wholeness and spiritual completeness and perfection? 
Certainly not. Neither does St. Paul. Both speak of 
finishing their earthly course without the most distant 
hint of any spiritual imperfection in themselves. In fact, 
St. Paul in the fifteenth verse of this chapter classifies 
himself among the perfect in these words : 'Let us there- 
fore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded.' This can 
mean nothing less than a state of moral completeness and 
undoubted loyalty to Christ, the love of God being so 



in p. 517. 



282 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



fully shed abroad in his heart as to exclude all that is an- 
tagonistic thereto. He means what St. John calls 'the 
love of God perfected, casting out all fear that hath tor- 
ment.' In the twelfth verse St. Paul disclaims perfec- 
tion as a victor, since he has not finished his race and 
touched the goal ; in the fifteenth he claims perfection as 
a racer, having laid aside every weight, and the sin which 
doth so easily beset." 

He defines Christian perfection as "getting rid of all 
sin and sinfulness." He leaves off "in sight," which he 
uses in connection with sanctification coterminous with 
regeneration. Here the terms are unlimited, "all sin and 
sinfulness." He uses an unscriptural term to describe its 
removal, viz.: "Suppression to the point of utter extinc- 
tion." St. John says "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth 
us from all sin." The Professor says we suppress all sin 
to the point of utter extinction. I ask, how does he know 
that ? Concerning depravity he says : "If at any time it 
reaches the zero point, and becomes extinct, that point of 
time is not a subject of consciousness;" then how can he 
know that suppression "to the point of utter extinction" 
is reached, or ever will be reached. The Scripture no- 
where teaches the suppression of sin to the point of utter 
extinction. It does positively state that regeneration gives 
dominion over "the sin of our nature — depravity." It as 
positively states "the blood of Jesus Christ" cleanseth us 
from all sin — the sin that regeneration gives us dominion 
over — but it nowhere teaches suppression to the point of 
utter extinction. I wonder how long this process of sup- 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 283 



pression takes to end all sin? Thousands have tried it 
for scores of years and never saw anything like "the point 
of utter extinction," who in a moment had all sin removed 
by trusting the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ. Can 
Professor Tillett quote a single witness of any standing 
for intelligence and spiritual power who has suppressed 
all sin to the point of utter extinction? In all the litera- 
ture of my acquaintance I do not know of one. Can he 
question the testimony of the cloud of witnesses I referred 
to? Their scholarship, piety, success, ability to analyze 
their states of consciousness, demand recognition. And 
especially, when he can not furnish such an array of schol- 
arship, piety, and success in spiritual work to prove that 
all "sin and sinfulness is removed by suppression to the 
point of utter extinction." He can not prove his position 
by one single witness. Should he do so he would deny 
his own statement, "If at any time it reaches the zero 
point, and becomes extinct, that point of time is not a 
subject of consciousness." If this statement is true, we 
can safely call for the witnesses with not a hope of re- 
sponse. He admits a residue of depravity "after regen- 
eration," but can furnish no proof of its removal by the 
method he suggests, because his method is anti-scrip- 
tural. 

He again defines Christian perfection as "no grace 
which ought to be in a Christian man is wanting" and 
"in that sense a believer may be perfect from the moment 
of his conversion." We use a stronger term. In that 
sense a believer is perfect from the moment of his con- 



284 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



version. All the graces of the Spirit are implanted at 
conversion, but none are perfect in conversion. The pro- 
cess by which the graces are perfected is the same as the 
one by which they began. Suddenly they were implanted, 
as suddenly are they perfected. Growth does not purify 
or cleanse a nature. A bee-stung apple continues to grow 
until mature, but never outgrows the defect. A dis- 
eased animal matures, but remains imperfect until death. 
Growth can only perfect that which is germinally per- 
fect. That which prevents the perfection of the graces, 
can be suddenly removed, and then, they being perfected, 
spiritual growth will be normal, symmetrical, and in "the 
beauty of holiness." 

Whatever may be his purpose, it is unbecoming to 
make these statements. "Some professing Christians 
seem to be saintly 'in spots,' seem to exercise some vir- 
tues to perfection." "Some professing Christians are 
saintly 'by spells.' " 112 As neither sentence is true, one 
can not divine the motive for such utterances treating on 
such an important theme. One can neither be saintly "in 
spots" nor "by spells." If so, I calmly ask for the proof. 

He says : "Being a true Christian and having Chris- 
tian perfection are one and the same thing." Every re- 
generate believer is a true Christian; therefore, the mo- 
ment a man is regenerated he has Christian perfection. 
Yet he says, "Let no Christian think that perfection is 
going to come to him bodily and instantaneously in one 
great blessing from heaven." Christian perfection is 

112 Pp. 445-447- 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 



285 



ethical; it is living perfectly free from every sin and in 
the perfect discharge of every duty." Then, unless a re- 
generate man has not Christian perfection, being a true 
Christian and Christian perfection are not one and the 
same thing. If being a true Christian and Christian per- 
fection "are one and the same thing," then Christian per- 
fection is not ethical. 

Again, he says, "all the power of God in heaven is 
pledged to help the man who is doing his very best — and 
that is Christian perfection." Is not a penitent soul in 
the agony of conviction seeking salvation "doing his very 
best?" Has he "Christian perfection?" Let him answer 
this question. "Christ is our perfect model, and Christian 
perfection is nothing more or less than conformity to 
Christ" (which is true, if he means having the mind and 
Spirit of Jesus Christ). Let him continue, "and to do 
in each event of life that which Christ would do, were he 
in our place, is to be perfect." Mr. Wesley has well said, 
"Indeed, my judgment is, that to overdo is to undo; and 
that to set perfection too high (so high as no man that 
we ever heard or read of, attained) is the most effectual 
(because unsuspected) way of driving it out of the world." 

To retain regeneration one must live this life of Chris- 
tian perfection, so says this writer. He says, it is "an 
imperative duty to live the life of Christian perfection," 
and then he defines that life, to "do in each event of life 
that which Christ would do were he in our place." What 
is duty is now obligatory, it is commanded. No one can 
knowingly disobey a duty and not sin. No one can know- 



286 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



ingly sm willfully, and continue regenerate afterward, so 
that, according to this teacher whoever does not "do in each 
event of life that which Christ would do were he in our 
place," is not perfect — is not regenerate. Now I assert we 
can not do what Christ would do in any instance, nor what 
any one else would do, for there are not two moral na- 
tures exactly alike. We can have the same spirit, and 
according to our ability, do our "very best ;" but our very 
best is not as Christ would do were he in our place. That 
which comprises personality must be regarded here. No 
two acts are, or can be, alike, even of the same person 
wrought at different times ; such are the mutations inevi- 
table here requiring new adjustments and changed con- 
duct. I have no doubt it is impossible for the Professor 
to practice his own theory. Intellectual and physical lim- 
itations and disabilities would make the act less perfect 
than Christ's, if there were no moral discrepancies be- 
tween them. He is correct in saying that he is to act in 
every relation in life as God would have "him" act, pro- 
vided he means as the man knows God would have him 
act. Mistakes contrary to the will of God are made by 
the most Godlike, through ignorance of all that should be 
known to prevent them. 

"His aspirations and prayers and ceaseless activities 
after perfection are proof that he is perfect." The man 
is perfect, then, who never reaches perfection. 

He positively affirms that "we can be made perfect 
here only by suffering," and quotes Heb. ii, 10, where 
it says, "Christ was made perfect through suffering." 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 287 



The implication is that he was made morally perfect 
through suffering. The Greek word here is teleido and 
means accomplish, consecrate, finish, fulfill, perfect. 
Christ accomplished his work through suffering. No 
reference is made here to the spiritual perfection of Jesus 
Christ. As this writer is dealing with moral perfection, 
the quotation is irrelevant. 

Anything is perfect which answers the end for which 
it was made. The only perfection treated of in the Scrip- 
tures as obligatory is perfection in love. Mr. Wesley 
states, "To be a perfect Christian is to love the Lord our 
God with all our heart, soul and mind, implying the de- 
struction of all inward sin ; and faith is the condition and 
instrument by which such a state of grace is obtained." 113 

"When I began to make the Scriptures my study 
(about seven and twenty years ago), I began to see that 
Christians are called to love God with all the heart and to 
serve him with all their strength, which is precisely what 
I apprehend to be meant by the Scriptural term 'perfec- 
tion/ 114 Entire sanctification, or Christian perfection, is 
neither more nor less than pure love ; love expelling sin 
and governing both the heart and life of a child of God." 
"There is no perfection of degrees." These passages 
set forth the true Scriptural definition of perfection — 
there is no other. 

MATURITY. 

To save his theory he introduces a "perfection of ma- 
turity," an indefinite something, not taught in the Scrip- 

113 Tyerman's Wesley, Vol. I, p. 444. 114 Meth. Mag. 1779, p. 434. 



288 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



tures, having no lines of demarcation in consciousness, 
and no place in a sound philosophy of Christian experi- 
ence, but always used by those who oppose a distinct in- 
stantaneous work of entire consecration and sanctification 
by faith subsequent to regeneration. Let its advocates 
traverse the plains of spiritual truth and locate it some- 
where before they advocate it as a fact. He says, "Ma- 
turity, in so far as it indicates cessation of growth, is 
strictly applicable only where decay and death are appli- 
cable, and as decay and death have no place in the nor- 
mal and ideal spiritual life, so maturity should never be 
used of the Christian life in any way to imply that spir- 
itual growth has ceased in any sense." 115 

And yet, after this clear utterance, he says, "There is 
still another different and higher perfection, that of per- 
fect growth, ending in the perfection of maturity." 116 
Here is a plain contradiction. He does not refer to glori- 
fied bodies. If he did, it is a doubtful statement, as the 
bodies of the resurrected saints will be made what they 
are to be in the twinkling of an eye. Surely the mind 
will never reach the place of perfect growth, nor can our 
spirits. I wonder which of the two sentences he wishes 
to adopt, for they contradict one another. His implica- 
tion that being a "babe" necessarily implies a long and 
gradual process of becoming a man in Christ Jesus is 
forcing a physical term to represent spiritual realities. 
Is there any law in the spiritual world to prevent one 
from becoming great spiritually soon after regeneration? 



i 15 P. 312. iiep. 464. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 



289 



Is God incapable of imparting the fullness of grace he so 
suddenly implants in regeneration? The biographies of 
the Church say he is able to do this, and they furnish 
an abundant proof. He says : "The blessing which some 
believers experience subsequent to their regeneration, 
whether it be a second blessing or 'the second blessing/ 
certainly marks a mighty change for good in their spirit- 
ual lives, and must therefore come from God. Every one 
who is conscious of not being saved from all sin should 
seek and obtain immediate anal instantaneous deliverance 
therefrom in penitence and faith, and this regardless of 
whether he considers that he has been previously regen- 
erated or not." If he is familiar with the testimony of 
those who testify to having received the blessing which 
"marks a mighty change for good in their spiritual lives," 
he must notice that this mighty change is always accom- 
panied with certain conditions which do not accompany 
previous blessings or subsequent ones. It is not "a" 
second blessing. They have thousands of blessings be- 
fore and thousands after. It is accompanied with a deep 
conviction of remaining impurity, a complete consecra- 
tion of everything to God, and faith in the all-cleansing 
blood of Jesus Christ. Preceding subsequent blessings 
there may be heart-searchings, testings of our consecra- 
tion, indescribable hunger for more of God, but no sense 
of inward defilement. It is strange that an experience 
which he admits "must therefore come from God," and 
has so many reliable witnesses, should be accepted by 
him as a fact, and the conditions upon which it is obtained 
19 



2 9 o METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



be denied or ignored. This could not be, unless a theory 
and not an experience must be sustained. These wit- 
nesses are clear in their states of consciousness, and to 
imply that they were not regenerate before, is to awaken 
their pity for those who thus charge them. I know of no 
one obtaining this experience, which he says must "come 
from God," who was not very clear in the fact he was 
truly regenerate. It is one of the inevitable conditions 
always taught by those who teach "the second blessing 
properly so-called." If, as he says, every one not con- 
scious of being saved from "all sin" should seek and ob- 
tain "immediate and instantaneous deliverance therefrom," 
whether he has been "previously regenerated or not," 
and the regenerate are not saved from all sin, according 
to his statement, but find the battle with sin has only 
commenced ; then what we advocate he insists upon an 
"immediate and instantaneous deliverance therefrom," — 
would not that be the sanctification subsequent to regen- 
eration, which delivers from all sin Mr. Wesley and his 
friends advocate? If immediate and instantaneous it 
must be "by faith." And if one obtains this blessing and 
is cleansed from "all sin," is he not entirely sanctified? 
Every one denying the second work by faith in the cleans- 
ing blood of Jesus practically concedes the point some- 
where in the discussion of the theme. 

As no one can locate "maturity," would it not be well 
to obey the divine injunction and "go on unto perfection?" 
There is no end to growth, it only develops the properties 
belonging to the substance, the inherent qualities. Spir- 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 291 



itual progress is everlasting, but perfection is an objec- 
tive point clearly reached by some Bible characters. Ma- 
turity is only an accommodating term. Perfection is a 
reality. We are not commanded to be "mature." We 
are commanded to be "perfect." In the degree the being 
is made perfect, in that degree the actions will conform 
to the perfect example. The perfecting of our spiritual 
natures is under a different law from the one for perfect- 
ing our intellectual or physical natures. Time is essen- 
tial for the last two, but not for the first. The spirit na- 
ture which is pure and made perfect in love, is as perfect 
as it ever can be in any complete sense. Perfect growth 
to a spirit nature is impossible. His doctrine of maturity 
is unscriptural and unphilosophical. A theory without a 
reason. He says, referring to 

WESLEY'S TWO SERMONS. 

"Among the expressions used to define that sin which is 
thought by many to characterize regenerate believers, are the 
following : 'Inbred sin,' 'sinful nature,' 'the being of sin,' 'the 
root of sin,' 'evil thoughts,' 'evil feelings,' 'evil tempers,' etc. 
Such sins as the spirit of 'resentment,' 'pride in the heart,' undue 
'self-esteem,' 'love of the world, 'self-will in the heart, even a will 
contrary to the will of God,' 'loving the praises of men,' 'fear of 
men,' 'jealousies/ 'evil surmisings,' 'envy/ 'covetousness/ 'idle 
words/ 'uncharitable conversation,' and the like, are said to char- 
acterize believers who are 'merely regenerate.' " m "There can 
be no difference of opinion as to the necessity for a radical and 
instantaneous work of grace within and upon the moral nature 
of every man who is conscious of, or manifests the various sins 
enumerated in Mr. Wesley's sermons on 'Sin in Believers/ and 
the 'Repentance of Believers.' " 11S 



117 P. 356. 



U8 P. 418. 



292 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



Dr. Huntington assails Mr. Wesley from the same 
standpoint. These two sermons have caused the opposers 
of the second experience of entire sanctification untold 
trouble. In every instance they misrepresent him. Quot- 
ing from Mr. Wesley, Professor Tillett inserts in paren- 
thesis the following ("that is, the sins which are above 
described as remaining in the regenerate"). 119 This quo- 
tation is very misleading with such a sentence not in Mr. 
Wesley's statement, inserted without acknowledging the 
insertion. Mr. Wesley is referring to "our enemies," not 
"the sins" enumerated above. He does not call them 
"sins," he faithfully adheres to the singular number. In 
the very quotation referred to he says, "Although we may 
'by the Spirit, mortify the deeds of the body,' resist and 
conquer both outward and inward sin; although we may 
weaken our enemies day by day, yet we can not drive them 
out. By all the grace which is given at justification we 
can not extirpate them." Who are the them, but "our 
enemies," and not "the sins" enumerated above? The 
two sermons will now be quoted from to sustain this 
proposition, that Mr. Wesley never alluded to willful self- 
determination to violate known law, but that state of na- 
ture in the regenerate which needs cleansing. He says : 

"By sin I here understand inward sin, any sinful temper, pas- 
sion or affection such as pride, self-will, love of the world, in any 
kind or degree ; such as lust, anger, peevishness,- any disposi- 
tion contrary to the mind which was in Christ." The question 
is simply this, "Is there no sin in his heart, nor ever after, unless 
he fall from grace?" "But was he not then freed from all sin, 



119 357- 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 



so that there is no sin in his heart ? I can not say this ; I can not 
believe this. Because Paul says to the contrary." 

''Will you answer, He that abstains 'from all appearance of 
evil' does, ipso facto 'cleanse himself from all filthiness?' Not in 
any wise. For instance, a man reviles me ; I feel resentment, 
which is filthiness of the spirit ; yet I say not a word. Here I 
abstain from all appearance of evil, but this does not cleanse me 
from that filthiness of spirit." 

God's children "are daily sensible of sin remaining in their 
heart, pride, self-will, unbelief, and sin cleaving to all they speak 
and do." "The question is not concerning outward sin; whether 
a child of God can commit sin or no, we agree 'whosoever is 
born of God doth not commit sin.' Can Christ be in the same 
heart where sin is? Undoubtedly He can. Christ indeed can 
not reign where sin reigns, neither will He dwell where any sin 
is allowed." One says, "I felt anger to-day." Must I reply, 
"Then you have no faith?" Another, "I know what is good, but 
my will is quite adverse to it." "Every babe in Christ is saved 
from sin, yet not entirely; it remains, though it does not reign." 
"That believers are delivered from the guilt and power of sin, 
we allow ; that they are delivered from the being of it we deny." 
"We are 'reconciled to God through the blood of the cross,' and 
in that moment the corruption of nature is put under our feet, 
the flesh has no more dominion over us. But it still exists, and 
it is still in its nature enmity with God." "A man may have 
pride in him, may think of himself in some particular above 
what he ought to think, and yet not be a proud man in his gen- 
eral character. He may have anger in him, yea, and a strong 
propensity to furious anger without giving way to it." "If the re- 
sentment I feel is not yielded to, there is no guilt at all." "He 
is not proud or self-willed in the same sense that unbelievers 
are ; that is, governed by pride or self-will. Unregenerate men 
obey sin. He does not." "A man may be in God's favor though 
he feel sin ; but not if he yields to it. Having sin does not for- 
feit the favor of God ; giving way to sin does." "Though we 
readily acknowledge that 'he that is born of God doth not com- 
mit sin,' yet we can not allow that he does not feel it within — it 
does not reign, but it does remain ;" "feels there is still pride in 
his heart;" "feels self-will in his heart;" "suppose he continues 
in the faith he fights against it with all his might, but this very 



294 MBTHODICT THEOLOGY. 



thing implies that it really exists, and that he is conscious of it;" 
"love of the world, this likewise even true believers are liable to 
feel in themselves." "He may feel the assaults of inordinate af- 
fection;" "the evil root remains in the heart." "Do we not feel 
other tempers, jealousies, evil surmisings, envy?" "Covetousness" 
with "pride," and "self-will and anger" remain in the heart," 
"even in them that are justified, a mind which is in some measure 
carnal," "a propensity to pride, self-will, anger, revenge, 'love of 
the world,' yea, and all evil, a root of bitterness, which, if the 
restraint were taken oft for a moment, would instantly spring 
up ; yea, such a depth of corruption, as without clear light from 
God, we can not possibly conceive. And a conviction of all this 
sin remaining in their hearts, is the repentance which belongs to 
them that are justified." "When we are justified" "it by no 
means is true that inward sin is then totally destroyed, that the 
root of pride, self-will, anger, love of the world, is then taken 
out of the heart." 

How any one can read these passages and not see the 
clear distinction made throughout between feeling and 
acting sinfully, it is hard to understand ; and how one can 
quote the evil itself without giving the relation it sustains, 
and then, contrary to the writer himself use the plural 
and call them sins, as though Air. Wesley meant that one 
could commit these sins and be regenerate, is strange in- 
deed. Air. Wesley positively says one can not "commit 
sin/' sin can not "reign," one can not "give way to it," 
it is not "yielded to," nor "obeyed," and be regenerate. 
He refers to sin "remaining" but not "reigning." 

It is a great injustice to Air. Wesley to set him forth 
as teaching that these dispositions, feelings, and tempers, 
are active, for he says they are not. They are felt, but not 
yielded to, and he made this fact the difference between 
the regenerate and the unregenerate. If in that first quo- 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 295 



tation including the list of phases of sin he enumerates, 
Dr. Tillett had said, Mr. Wesley believes all these remain 
as a "root" in every regenerate heart, he would have 
truthfully represented what Mr. Wesley taught, and what 
millions of Christians experience. All his argument based 
upon the theory that these sins can be active in the re- 
generated, and that they form a basis for a second work 
of grace, is wide of the mark. Not a single theologian 
recognized by the Church teaches any such doctrine. 

Mr. Wesley uses the plural in referring to the "sins of 
omission ;" the many things an unsanctified soul does not 
do, because of his state he is omitting many things a fully 
sanctified believer could and does do. He also refers 
to knowing what is good, but his "will is quite adverse to 
it." This is what Professor Janet calls "semi-will," noth- 
ing decided. "To intend to do a thing is to have such an 
idea yet undecided." There is a difference between being 
adverse to doing a thing, and deciding not to do it. The 
adverse feeling must obey the clear reason. We have 
both in the regenerate, but the regenerate do not yield 
to the adverse feeling. 

HISTORY MISREPRESENTED. 

He implies that Mr. Wesley was led to adopt the 

theory of an instantaneous sanctification from some who 

professed it. He says : 

"But it is a fact of curious interest that, while Mr. Wesley 
in the first instance derived his high and holy ideal of religion 
from studying the Bible, and then applied that ideal to the expe- 
rience, character, and life of himself and others, pressing all up 



296 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



to the Bible ideal, his ideas of instantaneous sanctification were 
derived first from certain Methodists professing to have experi- 
enced it, and then the Bible was examined to see if it taught the 
doctrine. He thought it did, but the exegesis by which the 
Bible was thought by him to teach it is considered by many as 
strained and unwarranted." 

For proof of this he cites the reader to Wesley's ser- 
mon on "Patience" and Tyerman's "Life of Wesley," 
Vol. 2, pp. 417, 444, 461. 

In the sermon on "Patience," 120 Wesley says that 
forty-five years before several came to him to relate their 
experience, and that it was "exactly similar to the pre- 
ceding account of entire sanctification." Others came 
next year in Bristol and Kingswood and gave him "ex- 
actly the same account of their experience." He exam- 
ined all the society in London at the Foundry, and dis- 
covered that six hundred and fifty-two members were 
exceedingly clear in their experience, and "of whose tes- 
timony I could see no reason to doubt." The work con- 
tinued, and every one of them "declared that his deliv- 
erance was instantaneous." "Had half of these, or one- 
third, or one in twenty, declared it was gradually wrought 
in them, I should have believed this with regard to them, 
and thought that some were gradually sanctified and some 
instantaneously." He then asks the question, "How may 
we attain to it?" and says: "First, believe that God has 
promised to save you from all sin, and to fill you with all 
holiness ; secondly, believe that he is able thus to save 
to the uttermost; thirdly, believe that he is willing, as 

120 Sermons, Vol. II, p. 222. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 297' 



well as able to save you to the uttermost, to purify you 
from all sin, and fill up all your heart with love. Believe, 
fourthly, that he is not only able, but willing to do it now. 
Not when you die, nor at any distant time ; not to-morrow, 
but to-day/' Mr. Wesley's reason for this was not his 
own uncertainty. From the beginning, in that sermon 
preached in his thirtieth year on "The Circumcision of 
the Heart," he positively advocated that the work of 
cleansing and sanctifying was "by faith." Finding "the 
Scriptures are silent" upon the subject of the instanta- 
neousness of the work, "because the point is not deter- 
mined, at least, not in express terms," he allowed a few 
who desired to tell him their experience to do so, and so 
he examined thousands, not to determine whether the 
work of entire sanctification was instantaneous, but 
whether it might not also be wrought gradually. He 
never questioned instantaneous sanctification from the 
time God "strangely warmed his heart." But, desiring 
only the truth, he said "if one in twenty had told him it 
was gradually wrought in them, he would have believed 
this "with regard to them, and thought that some were 
gradually sanctified and some instantaneously." In forty- 
five years he had not found one, and neither can Profes- 
sor Tillett find one who experiences what he teaches, in 
forty-five years. His statements are not true, that Mr. 
Wesley was led to believe in "instantaneous sanctifica- 
tion" "from certain Methodists professing to have expe- 
rienced it, and then the Bible was examined to see if it 
taught the doctrine." In a letter to Bell and Owen, Mr. 



2 9 S METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



Wesley said: ''You have over and over denied instanta- 
neous sanctification to me, but I have known and taught 
it above these twenty years." 121 This shows that he had 
advocated this experience since 1740 at least. He formed 
his first society, July 20, 1740, with nineteen members. 
It was May 28, 1738, when he felt his "heart strangely 
warmed," after his return from America. February 6, 
1756, he said, "About seven and twenty years ago" viz., 
1729, "I began to see that Christians are called to love 
God with all their heart and serve him with afl their 
strength; which is precisely what I apprehend to be meant 
by the Scruptural term Perfection." He describes these 
times thus: "In the year 1729, four young students in 
Oxford agreed to spend their evenings together. They 
were all zealous members of the Church of England, and 
had no particular opinions, but were distinguished only 
by their constant attendance on the Church and sacra- 
ments. In 1735 they were increased to fifteen, 122 when 
the chief of them embarked for America, intending to 
preach to the heathen Indians. Methodism then seemed 
to die away; but it revived again in 1738." 123 "Many 
years since I saw that 'without holiness no man shall see 
the Lord/ I began following after it, and inciting all 
with whom I had any intercourse, to do the same. Ten 
years after God gave me a clearer view than I had before 
of the way how to obtain this, namely, 'By faith in the 
Son of God/ and immediately I declared to all, we are 
saved from sin, we are made holy, by faith. This I testi- 

* 21 Oct., 1762. 122 Six years. 123 Arminian Magazine, Vol. X, p. 100. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 299 



fied in private, in public, in print, and God confirmed it 
by a thousand witnesses. I have continued to declare this 
for thirty years." 124 

All this goes to show that Mr. Wesley from the be- 
ginning taught that sanctification, subsequent to regen- 
eration, was instantaneous. He gave gradualism a chance 
for nearly fifty years to produce one witness. Had he 
found one he would have taught that some are sanctified 
gradually and some instantaneously. His position was 
"confirmed" by thousands of witnesses, and he never 
changed from the beginning. 

Here Mr. Wesley makes a positive statement : "God 
gave me a clearer view than I had before of the way how 
to obtain this, namely, 'By faith in the Son of God,' and 
immediately I declared to all," etc., etc. Can any one 
familiar with the faithfulness with which God's dealings 
with men are recorded by Mr. Wesley, think for one mo- 
ment that he would hide the instrumentality thus in a 
general term, and not mention that the instantaneous 
phase came to him by hearing some Methodists witness- 
ing to it, if such were the case? God gave Mr. Wesley a 
clearer view, as he has thousands since, of how this ex- 
perience is obtained ; and "immediately" he declared it 
to all. Such was his humility at the time he wrote the 
above, and such his method of recording the steps in the 
development of the history of Methodism, that, had a few 
humble witnesses shown him the way, as Dr. Tillett says, 
he would have given credit to those humble souls, as he 

124 Arminian Magazine, Vol. XX, p. 563. 



3oo METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



related the mission of those who came to him at Bristol 
and Kingswood. Without a particle of historic evidence, 
and with the above statement before him, it is inconceiva- 
ble to me that the writer could make such a statement. 
"God gave" Mr. Wesley the vision of faith by which he 
obtained holiness, and he "immediately" "testified in pri- 
vate, in public, and in print" to its reality. Any one who 
has passed through this experience can not fail to see the 
steps taken by our honored founder, as the divinely ap- 
pointed means to possess the experience, in possession of 
which, the immediate testimony is the inevitable conse- 
quence. 

His exegesis is neither "strained" nor "unwarranted." 
He based it upon the true nature of faith, corroborated 
by his own experience. 

MR. LUKE TYERMAN'S ERROR. 

It is strange that Mr. Tyerman should fall into the 
error which leads Dr. Tillett to misrepresent Mr. Wesley. 
He says : "Wesley had held the doctrine of Christian per- 
fection ever since the year 1733, but now for the first 
time (1760) he found people professing to experience 
and practice it. Yea, more, they professed to have at- 
tained to this state of purity in a moment, and by simple 
faith." 125 

Dr. Tyerman claims that this was the "first time" Mr. 
Wesley found people professing to experience and prac- 
tice "Christian perfection." Let us see. In his sermon 

125 Tyer man's Life of Wesley, Vol. II, p. 417. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 301 



on "Patience," Mr. Wesley says : "Four or five and forty 
years ago, when I had no distinct views of what the 
Apostle meant by exhorting us to 'leave the principles 
of the doctrine of Christ and go on to perfection,' two 
or three persons in London, whom I knew to be truly 
sincere, desired to give me an account of their experience. 
It appeared exceedingly strange, being different from any 
that I had heard before, but exactly similar to the preced- 
ing account of entire sanctification. The next year, two 
or three more persons at Bristol, and two or three in 
Kingswood, coming to me severally, gave me exactly the 
same account of their experience. A few years after I 
desired all those in London, who made the same profes- 
sion, to come to me all together at the Foundry." "In 
the years 1759, 1760, 1761 and 1762 their numbers mul- 
tiplied exceedingly, not only in London and Bristol, but 
in various parts of Ireland as well as England." 126 

Mr. Wesley wrote this sermon on "Patience" in 1784 
for the "Arminian Magazine." Forty-five years before 
would be 1739, when these persons came to Mr. Wesley 
and told him the experiences which were similar to his 
own account of entire sanctification. The next year 
(1740) there were others from Kingswood and Bristol, 
and subsequently many in London met him at the Foun- 
dry, whose testimonies he could not but believe. All this 
disproves Mr. Tyerman's statement that 1760 was the 
"first time" Mr. Wesley found people professing to ex- 
perience "Christian perfection." Twenty-one years be- 



126 Sermons, Vol. II, p. 223. 



302 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



fore this, according to Mr. Wesley, he conversed with 
witnesses. So this effort to prove that Mr. Wesley took 
up the instantaneous feature of entire sanctification later 
in life, falls to the ground. Mr. Tyerman is mistaken by 
twenty-one years, and Professor Tillett's argument based 
upon the mistake has no value, and his statement that 
"he was introducing an element into his doctrine of Chris- 
tian perfection that was logically and theologically irrec- 
oncilable with the doctrine which he had been preaching 
from the beginning of his ministry" 127 is not true. Hav- 
ing shown that Dr. Tyerman was mistaken as to the time 
the doctrine of "instantaneous sanctification" appeared, 
the Professor's statement that it was "then" that he in- 
troduced for the "first time" that element of his doctrine 
"which has been the fruitful cause of serious differences 
of opinion among his followers from that day to this," 128 
is not true. 

I should be glad to believe that the "serious differ- 
ences of opinion" could be traced back to any mistaken 
theory of Mr. Wesley. The Professor is not denying an 
"opinion," but an experience, tested by the most certain 
methods of self analysis, and proven most satisfactorily 
by the witnesses. Many scholars who had an "opinion." 
and earnestly contended for it, quite contrary to what 
they now profess to experience, saw the mistake and 
sought and obtained, after the John Wesley fashion, "en- 
tire sanctification ;" some of them are in the foremost 
ranks of scholars, linguists, and devout men. Like this 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 303 



author, they ransacked history, wrote books, argued, and 
evolved theories to no purpose. God has his way of lead- 
ing men into the truth, and opinions and theories must 
be abandoned, and the simple way of faith must be fol- 
lowed at all cost. 

Well has Mr. Wesley said, "If Methodism is over- 
thrown, it will not be by the crude methods, or illogical 
teaching of the so-called 'holiness people,' but by the 
hands of polished clergymen who neither believe her doc- 
trines, nor practice her polity. These are the 'unreason- 
able men' from which it must purge itself or fall by their 
weight." 

THOMAS MAXFIELD AND GEORGE BELL. 
Professor Tillett seems to follow Mr. Tyerman irre- 
spective of the facts, taking everything he says for true. 
He says : 

"There is no epoch or event in John Wesley's whole career 
as a preacher and religious leader that so thoroughly tried his 
wisdom and grace as when Thomas Maxfield and George Bell — 
who had had, as we have seen, so much to do with starting the 
'instantaneous sanctification,' or 'second blessing' movement — 
went off into fanaticism ; got so 'holy' that they thought Mr. 
Wesley unqualified to teach them anything, because he was not 
himself 'sanctified,' began to create factions in the societies ; 
presently got a 'third blessing,' and left the Church, with many 
of their sympathizers ; and later repudiated the doctrine of Chris- 
tian perfection altogether, and turned to preaching openly against 
it, one of them finally dying a rank infidel." 129 

It seems to have no value with the Professor that 
Mr. Wesley referred to entire sanctification as "the 
second blessing properly so called." In all his works, 



129 p. 530. 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



Mr. Wesley makes no reference to Thomas Maxfield 
and George Bell "starting the instantaneous sancti- 
fication movement." Such a journalist as Mr. Wes- 
ley would not have failed to notice it if such were 
the case. He mentions many other things concern- 
ing their fanaticism, but never charges them with start- 
ing any such "movement." Consequently the statement 
can have no historic value without some proof. A revival 
of entire sanctification was on hand when they joined 
Wesley. It "began" again in 1760 "after it had been 
nearly at a stand for twenty years." It was in its glow 
when Maxfield and Bell became fanatical. They said Mr. 
Wesley did not have the experience, but they never 
claimed that they were the originators of the instanta- 
neous phase of it. He says "You have over and over de- 
nied instantaneous sanctification to me;* but I have known 
and taught it (and so has my brother, as our writings 
show) above these twenty years." Mr. Wesley can not 
mean that Bell and Owen denied "instantaneous sanctifi- 
cation," for he commends them for teaching it. He says 
"I like your doctrine of perfection, or pure love; love 
excluding sin; your insisting that it is merely by faith; 
that consequently it is instantaneous, and that it may be 
now at this instant." The charge was that they denied 
that he had obtained "instantaneous sanctification." It 
was his opportunity to indorse their denial if he had not, 
and keep himself out of the hands of mad fanatics. What 
was his answer? "I have known and taught it above 

* Italics mine, 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 305 



these twenty years." Not I have known of it. Again, 
"I have continually testified (for these five and twenty 
years) in private and public, that we are sanctified as 
well as justified by faith." Mr. Wesley is not here de- 
fending what Bell and Owen believed and preached. He 
is defending himself against the charge that he did not 
possess and profess it. No statement could be more ex- 
plicit, and it is strange that any one should say he never 
professed it. If Professor Tillett should say that he had 
"testified" to justification for twenty-five years, would he 
want us to be positive that he meant he had preached and 
taught justification, but had never experienced it? Then 
for above ''twenty years" before the Bell and Maxwell 
trouble, Mr. Wesley had witnessed to holiness (or since 
1 741) as an instantaneous experience. 

Of the many things Mr. Wesley charges Mr. Bell and 
Maxfield with, no reference is made to an instantaneous 
work other than favorably, and strange to say, if Mr. 
Wesley disapproved of the profession, why does Mr. 
Tyerman say that from this time he preached it more 
constantly? Professor Tillett would leave the impression 
that the instantaneous phase of Christian Perfection 
caused all this trouble and led to the disturbance in the 
societies. Mr. Wesley gives other reasons. "Supposing 
man may be as perfect as an angel ; that he can be abso- 
lutely perfect ; that he can be infallible ;" "depreciating 
justification," "their antinomianism," their "lack of love to 
their brethren," "counting every man" who opposed them 

"an enemy," Bell's prophecy concerning the world coming 
20 



3 o6 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



to an end on February 28, 1763; spurious claims of heal- 
ing and attempts to raise the dead ; these, and minor 
errors, caused the disruption which ended so unfavorably 
to its originators. 

DID MR. WESLEY LET INSTANTANEOUS SANCTIFI- 
CATION ''QUIETLY DROP?" 

Dr. Tillett says, that "during the last twelve or fif- 
teen years before his death," Mr. Wesley "let all insist- 
ence upon instantaneous sanctification quietly drop." 130 

Writing to his brother Charles in 1766, he said, "Insist 
everywhere on full redemption receivable now, by faith alone ! 
Consequently to be looked for now. You are made, as it were, 
for this thing. Just here you are in your element. Press the 
instantaneous blessing, and then I shall have more time for my 
peculiar calling, enforcing the gradual work." 131 "I earnestly 
desire that all our preachers would seriously consider the pre- 
ceding account (Rev. Alexander Mather's experience) and let 
them not be content, never to speak against the great salvation, 
either in public or private ; and never to discourage, either by 
word or deed, any that think they have it. No ; but prudently 
encourage them to hold fast whereunto they have attained, and 
strongly and explicitly exhort all believers to go on to perfection ; 
yea, to expect full salvation from all sin every moment, by mere 
grace, through simple faith." 132 

(This was eighteen years after the Bell and Maxfield trouble, 
and eleven years before his death.) 

In 1782 he wrote Miss Ritchie: "Honest John Brown firmly 
believes this doctrine, that we are to be saved from all sin in 
this life. But I wish . . . you would encourage him (1) To 
preach Christian perfection, constantly, strongly, and explicitly; 
(2) Explicitly to assert and prove that it may be received now; 
and (3) That it is to be received by simple faith." 133 (This was 
nine years before his death.) 



130 p. 527. 131 works. Eng. Ed., Vol. XII, p. 122. 

132 Ar. Mag., January 2, 1780. 133 Works, Vol. VII, p. 181. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 



307 



"In the evening I exhorted them all to expect pardon or holi- 
ness to-day, not to-morrow" 13i This was eight years before his 
death.) 

"It will be well, as soon as any of them find peace with God, 
to exhort them to 'go on to perfection.'' The more explicitly and 
strongly you press all believers to aspire after full sanctification, 
as attainable now by simple faith, the more the whole work of 
God will prosper." 135 (This was six years before his death.) 

While preaching in the evening at Burslem "two declared, 
after bitter cries, that they knew their sins were just blotted 
out by the blood of the Lamb; and I doubt not but it will be 
found, upon inquiry, that several more were either justified or 
sanctified." 130 (This was four years before his death.) 

In the Large Minutes revised and published in 1789 
and sent out again in 1791, the year of Mr. Wesley's 
death, he says: 

"You are all agreed we may be saved from all sin before 
death. . . . And if sin cease before death, there must, in the 
nature of the thing, be an instantaneous change ; there must be a 
last moment wherein it does exist, and a first moment wherein 
it does not," "therefore whoever would advance the gradual 
change in believers, should strongly insist on the instantaneous." 
"Does not talking without proper caution, of a justified and 
sanctified state tend to mislead men ; and almost naturally lead 
them to trust in what was done in one moment." 137 

I have inserted this first letter from John to Charles 
Wesley to show that Mr. Wesley thought him most ca- 
pable of pushing perfection ; and that four years after the 
Bell and Maxfield trouble he urged him to "push the in- 
stantaneous blessing." Eleven years before his death he 
urges the preachers to "strongly and explicitly exhort 
all believers ... to expect full salvation from all 



134 works, Vol. IV, p. 573. 
us/fttf., Vol. IV, p. 656. 



135 Ibid., Vol. VII, p. 184. 
137 Ibid., Vol. V, p. 233, 237 



308 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



sin every moment." Surely this is instantaneous. He 
wished Brother Brown to explicitly "assert and prove, 
that it may be received now," nine -years before his death. 
The next year he "exhorted them all to expect pardon or 
holiness to-day." Six years before his death he wrote 
Freeborn Garretson to "press all believers to aspire after 
full sanctification as attainable now, by simple faith." Can 
anything be more instantaneous than "now ?" Four years 
before his death he says some received the blessing while 
he was conducting an evening meeting at Burslem, and 
two years after, he revised and published his "Large Min- 
utes," in which he says, "in the nature of the thing, there 
must be an instantaneous change," and that they "should 
strongly insist on the instantaneous change." This is suf- 
ficient, though more could be given to prove the above 
statement utterly unfounded. It is a piece of glaring his- 
torical inaccuracy which his Church ought to demand 
should be corrected. It has no excuse, for the statement 
was made to build an argument upon it. 

KESWICK AND NORTHFIELD VS. METHODISM. 

Professor Tillett gives his indorsement to the Keswick 
and Northfield teachings on Christian perfection in pref- 
erence to Methodist standards, and says these movements 
have "some points in common with the Wesleyan doctrine 
of Christian perfection." 138 Sanctification for service by 
the power of the Holy Spirit, 139 has been the keynote of 
.these movements. For the leaders of these movements 



138 P. 420. 139 P. 419. 



PERSONAL SALVATION, 309 



this is a decided advance over their standards as they are 
mostly Calvinists. But he must not think for a moment 
that they would accept his definitions of sanctification, 
holiness, entire sanctification or perfection. They do not 
teach that sanctification and holiness are coterminous 
with regeneration and that a sinless life is the privilege 
of every regenerate believer from the beginning, that it 
is his duty to experience Christian perfection from the 
moment he is regenerated. On the subject of Christian 
perfection they have nothing "in common with the Wes- 
leyan doctrine." One need only compare the teachings 
to be convinced. F. B. Meyer, a leader of the Keswick 
movement says : 

On this platform we never say self is dead ; were we to do so, 
self would be laughing at us 'round the corner. The teaching 
of Rom. vi, 6, is not that self is dead, but that the renewed will 
is dead to self. The man's will says 'Yes' to Christ and 'No' to 
self, through the Spirit's grace it constantly repudiates, and weak- 
ens, and mortifies the power of the flesh." 140 This is exactly 
what Mr. Wesley taught regeneration did. H. Webb Peploe, 
another leader, says : "It is simply according to our faith that 
we receive, and faith only draws from God according to our 
present possibilities. These are limited by indwelling corrup- 
tion; and while never needing to sin in the sphere of the light 
we possess, it is even taught at Keswick, as in every part of God's 
Word, that there are, to the very last hour of our life upon earth, 
powers of corruption within every man which defile his very 
best deeds, and give even to his holiest efforts, the nature of sin." 
"Every part of Scripture teaches the retention of corruption in 
man to the last hour of life." 

Rev. R. A. Torrey, representing the Northfield teaching, says : 
"The baptism of the Holy Spirit has no direct reference to cleans- 
ing from sin. This is an important point to bear in mind for 



140 Pentecost Rejected, p. 31. 



3io METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



many reasons. There is a line of teaching on this subject that 
leads men to expect that if they receive the baptism of the Holy 
Spirit, the old carnal nature will be eradicated. There is not a 
line or Scripture to support the position." 141 

Like Professor Tillett, these brethren contradict them- 
selves in their writings. Referring to "The Relation of 
the Baptism with the Holy Ghost to Preachers and Preach- 
ing," Rev. Meyer says : "You must be a holy man." 
"You must be cleansed." "By faith you are regenerated ; 
by faith you are justified; by faith you are sanctified; 
by faith you receive the Holy Ghost." Where did he get 
the authority to transpose Scripture and quote Rom. vi, 
6, as he has ? His namesake, "the greatest living exegete," 
says the old man is destroyed, so does Paul, so did Wes- 
ley. The "old man" is not self. It is the "not I" of Gal. 
ii, 20. Paul clearly states this, "So then, I myself, with 
the mind serve the law of God ; but with the flesh the law 
of sin." 

Strange teaching this to be considered a favorable 
substitute for Methodism. If Professor Tillett has care- 
fully studied the writings of Keswick and Northfield lead- 
ers, he can not but discover that on the question of Chris- 
tian Perfection they not only have nothing "in common," 
but a good deal in pronounced opposition to the teachings 
of Wesleyanism. Campbell Morgan said at Northfield 
that they know nothing of a "second blessing," but a 
greater than Campbell Morgan taught the "second bless- 
ing, properly so called." For a dean of a theological 
Faculty in a Methodist University to compare a young, 



141 How to Bring Men to Christ, p. 106. 



PERSONAL SALVATION 311 



untried man with Mr. Wesley, to the disparagement of 
Mr. Wesley, is a piece of unwisdom not requiring any 
comment. Perhaps the next we will hear is that Rev. 
Campbell Morgan is a greater theologian than John Wes- 
ley. Does the Professor ever expect that any of the writ- 
ings from Northfield or Keswick will become standards 
of theology in our courses of study for ministers, and if 
so, will he name the writer? 

WESLEY AS A PREACHER AND THEOLOGIAN. 

Professor Tillett gives John Wesley his due as a 
preacher. He says : 

"It is all but impossible to rise up from the perusal of any 
of his sermons or other devotional writings without feeling an 
intense desire to be a better and holier man. This is the true 
test of a great preacher. . -. . His sermons have the moral 
and spiritual consistency of a man who says 'I would rather 
be right than consistent ; I would rather believe and teach that 
which I here and now feel to be the truth than to be continually 
stopping and asking myself whether this statement I am about 
to make or have just made, accords perfectly with what I have 
previously said and written ! That is the kind of consistency we 
want to see in a preacher and religious writer, and that is just 
the kind of self-consistency we find in the writings of John Wes- 
ley, But uniform theological and doctrinal self-consistency — is 
that found there? And would we seriously detract from their 
true spiritual value if we should be compelled to say that it is 
not found there?" "Many of Mr. Wesley's followers have used 
his sermons as if they contained a logical and perfect system of 
Christian theology. To set him before the world, however, as a 
theologian, and as an authority in doctrine is to do him a great 
wrong and subject him to needless criticism. He has suffered 
greatly in this way at the hands of his friends." "If one should 
take up John Wesley's writings and examine them as if they 
were a systematic theology to find a logical and self-consistent 



312 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



treatment of the doctrine of holiness, it would not be surprising 
if he should reach the conclusion that it is practically impossible 
to reconcile Wesley with himself, owing to the fact that his 
writings contains here and there statements and views that are 
incapable of being harmonized with statements and views found 
elsewhere in his writings." "He later in life gathered these writ- 
ings together and republished them without alterations ; and 
claimed they were self-consistent." "All the proof" necessary to 
justify this assertion that "entire dogmatic and theological self- 
consistency and harmony are not there" — is to point out the end- 
less discussions that have been going on for a l undred years 
over the Methodist doctrine of Christian perfection." 142 

The inability of Professor Tillett to correctly set forth 
the history, theology, or philosophy of Methodism has 
been shown. He could hardly be expected to recognize 
a system of "entire dogmatic and theological self-consist- 
ency." A number of professed scholars are to-day seek- 
ing to prove that the Scriptures are not "self-consistent." 
Some of them occupy chairs in our Methodist Universi- 
ties. 

The revisers of the New Testament indorsed, almost 
bodily, Mr. Wesley's "Notes on the New Testament," 
adopting his translation, and thus keeping him abreast 
with the scholars of this age. Not a leading theologian 
down to Agar Beet, D. D., has questioned Mr. Wesley's 
theology as to its clearness and consistency. Thousands 
of scholars who have carefully studied his writings, and 
have experienced what he taught, have failed to discover 
any lack of consistency in his theological views. 

Mr. Southey said in a letter to Wilberforce, "I con- 
sider Wesley as the most influential mind of the last cen- 



1« pp. 510-513. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 313 



tury." Mr. Tyerman, his historian, says: "Such was 
his acquaintance with the New Testament, that, when at 
a loss to repeat a text in the words of the authorized 
translation, he was never at a loss to quote it in the orig- 
inal Greek." 143 

Mr. Wesley did not attempt what in modern times 
is called "Systematic Theology," though he was familiar 
with every system of theology in existence. Much of it 
was loaded down with superfluous argumentation. He 
was an exponent of the truth from an experimental stand- 
point. If the object of theology is to most intelligently 
state the truth concerning God and man, and their rela- 
tions to one another, Mr. Wesley stands unchallenged as 
a theologian. His theology was the formulations of a 
wonderfully illumined spirit seeking to explain subject- 
ive phenomena upon the most vital themes in words of 
spiritual wisdom. Rightly interpreting the letter of the 
Word, his formula needed no changes as the truth it de- 
clared became subjective and experimental. Others tested 
its teachings, and a great cloud of witnesses gathered 
around him producing the most marvelous spiritual re- 
vival since Pentecost. The very doctrine which Professor 
Tillett claims he is inconsistent in teaching is the one to 
which he attributes his success and the success of those 
he gathered around him, viz., Christian perfection. Mil- 
lions who never heard him preach, by studying his theol- 
ogy, entered into the same experience. He knew that a 
process of reasoning upon the doctrine without a spirit- 

i43Tyerman's Wesley, Vol. Ill, p. 656. 



3H METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



ual consciousness behind it is sure to be defective. He 
urged that it be set forth only to those who are panting 
after it, otherwise it would be "casting pearls before 
swine." The theologian of Christianity said "spiritual 
things are spiritually discerned." Critical reasoning, 
however superior, is not equal to the task of explaining 
or denying spiritual consciousness. 

Professor James, of Harvard University, has eluci- 
dated this fact in his "Varieties of Religious Experience." 
He says : 

"One can never fathom an emotion or divine its dictates by- 
standing outside of it. In the glowing hour of excitement, how- 
ever, all incomprehensibilities are solved, and what was so enig- 
matical from without becomes transparently obvious. Each emo- 
tion obeys a logic of its own, and makes deductions which no 
other logic can draw." 144 "I do believe that feeling is the deeper 
source of religion, and that philosophic and theological formulas 
are secondary products like translations of a text into another 
tongue." "When I call theological formulas secondary products 
I mean that in a world in which no religious feeling had ever ex- 
isted, I doubt whether any philosophic theology could ever have 
been framed." "All these intellectual operations, whether they be 
constructive or comparative and critical presuppose immediate 
experiences as their subject matter. They are interpretative and 
inductive operations after the fact, consequent upon religious 
feeling — not co-ordinate with it." "The intellectualism in relig- 
ion which I wish to discredit . . . pretends to be something 
altogether different from this. It assumes to construct religious 
objects out of the resources of logical reason alone, or of logical 
reason drawing rigorous inference from non-subjective facts." 145 

This last sentence explains several recent attempts to 
cast discredit upon Wesley's teachings on Christian per- 
fection, all of which glaringly contradict each other. Drs. 



144 P. 325- 



P. 431. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 



3i5 



Huntington, Mudge, Boland, and Tillett only agree on 
one vital point, the "immediate experiences as subject 
matter" are lacking. They evolve theories "out of the 
resources of logical reason alone." And frequently they 
are exceedingly illogical. 

Professor Fairbairn says: "It is a wholesome thing 
to remember that the men who elaborated our theologies 
were at least as rational as their critics, and that we owe 
to historical truth to look to their belief with their eyes." 

Wesley valued theology for its spiritual fruitfulness. 
He found where Christian perfection was taught as he 
presented it, revivals followed. The theology of Drs. 
Huntington, Mudge, Boland, Tillett and a few others, 
is new, and wholly "untried. Evidently none of them have 
produced a system of "entire dogmatic and theological 
self-consistency," as they are not agreed among them- 
selves, and unfortunately, none of them can produce any 
witnesses to prove the soundness of their theology. 

Bishop Simpson's words delivered in London at the 
Ecumenical Conference, 1881, are appropriate here: 

"A half dozen students and tutors in the University studying 
the Word of God critically, believing it implicitly, and obeying 
it practically in every possible form of doing >good. This was 
old-fashioned Methodism. Could such a spirit return to our 
colleges and universities, were all professors and students of like 
mind, what 'spirit and life' would soon be manifested in all our 
ranks ! What a host of 'burning and shining lights' would soon 
honor our age. ' 

Whatever the future may bring, Methodism has never 
had a division as to doctrine, and such a thing is only 



316 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



possible by not having her doctrine on Christian perfec- 
tion wrought into a spiritual consciousness. 

Orthodox Congregationalism preached the New Birth 
in New England, and held fast to the doctrine of the 
Divinity and Deityship of our Lord. It accepted unre- 
generate men as candidates for its ministry and they 
failed to preach the New Birth. They produced a con- 
stituency who could not call Jesus Lord, by the Holy 
Ghost. They met in convention, those who had the spir- 
itual consciousness, and those who had not, and Unita- 
rianism was the result. This is our present danger. The 
fundamental doctrine of Methodism is being assailed by 
denying the soundness of its leader on the doctrine of 
Christian perfection. Many know nothing of it experi- 
mentally. In the last few years a restless spirit has taken 
possession of those who, heretofore, were content to be 
silent. They are seeking to dispose of the subjective, in- 
stantaneous phase of it ; they say it is ethical, or gradual, 
or a false theory altogether. They ignore their superiors 
as to learning and spiritual achievement, and arrogate to 
themselves abilities that they are far from possessing. 
They have ceased to be silent and seek leadership. Many 
without experience find comfort for their remaining car- 
nality. Three such writers have passed away, after bold 
attacks on Wesley and Christian perfection ; one stating 
toward the end of his life, "If ever the devil had me do 
anything in my life, he had me write that book." They 
can only raise an intellectual constituency. Wesley left 
witnesses. They will do harm. The chill of their refined 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 317 



doubt is stealing toward the heart of the Church. They 
oppose revivals. Meanwhile a large number which must 
be accounted for are seeking the truth from irregular 
sources. Must we repeat history and have a divided 
Church for the first time in our history over a doctrine 
which in the past brought together from all quarters of 
the globe, from every tribe and tongue, to the standard of 
Methodism, witnesses to Christian perfection as taught 
by John Wesley ? I do n't believe it. The Church may, 
for lack of a Wesley to administer discipline, tolerate 
such for a while ; but the cry of the heart for holiness will 
be heard in the skies, and God will raise up men after 
his own heart, who will feed the flock of God, and defend 
the faith of the fathers ; not by flimsy honors mutually 
conferred, but by supernatural enduements and living 
witnesses. 

There have been controversies "from the beginning" 
concerning the doctrine of holiness, but not among its 
theologians. Had Whitefield, who was not a theologian, 
joined Wesley on this point, he would have been per- 
manently incorporated into the greatest evangelistic 
movement of the Christian centuries. His work wanes, 
while Wesley's grows. A theologian opposing Wesley's 
teachings on instantaneous sanctification from his own 
ranks, is a new thing under the sun. When Mr. Wesley 
found any of the preachers disinclined to believe his 
teachings, at his Conferences the matter was prayerfully 
discussed and the result for many years was recorded 
thus by him: "Nor do I remember that, in any one of 



318 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



these Conferences, we had one dissenting voice ; but what- 
ever doubts any one had when we met, they were all re- 
moved before we parted." 146 

Mr. Wesley redeemed Arminianism and beautified it 
and 25,000,000 intelligent worshipers accept his teach- 
ings. He taught the doctrine of the divine provision for 
childhood, independent of Baptismal Regeneration. He 
overthrew the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, and 
raised a grander constituency than the Church which 
taught it. He met the confessional of Romanism with 
the Agape and class-meeting of the New Testament. 
Sacerdotalism received its death wound with lay preach- 
ing. He distinguished between the right of the Church 
to appoint, and the right of the Spirit to call ministers. 
His "Ecclesiastical History" and "Christian Library" of 
fifty volumes is of great value. 

What doctrine was not touched by his ever active pen ? 
He detected the error of the Moravians, though he re- 
ceived his spiritual quickening through their ministry. He 
exposed the Zinzendorfian error of an "imputed holi- 
ness." He overthrew the "five points of Calvinism," and 
exposed a false mysticism. 

Of John and Charles Wesley, Bishop Mallalieu says, 
in his excellent work, "The Fullness of the Blessing," 
page 19: "So highly endowed by nature, so thoroughly 
cultured in the home and the schools, so rich in Christian 
experience, and both possessed of poetic genius and mas- 
ters in theology, it is no wonder that the Wesleys have 

i« Works, Vol. VI, p. 499. 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 319 



left as a heritage for all God's people such a collection of 

hymns as have never been excelled in the history of the 

Christian Church." Of those hymns, Mr. Wesley says: 

"I do not think it inconsistent with modesty to declare that 
I am persuaded no such hymn-book as this has yet been pub- 
lished in the English language. In what other publications of 
the kind have you so full and distinct an account of Scriptural 
Christianity? Such a declaration of the heights and depths of 
religion speculative and practical? So strong cautions against 
plausible errors, particularly those that are now most prevalent? 
And so clear directions for making your calling and election sure, 
for perfecting holiness in the fear of God?" 

After two centuries we have nothing superior to them. 
There is a spirit of truth in his theology and hymns which 
have made a Church and a history unparalleled since the 
early history of the Church. The glorious mysteries of 
faith were never more clearly taught and his theology is 
as close a reproduction of inspired thought as can be 
found. Has any other theology modified the theologies 
of Christendom as his has? Founded upon facts, no 
philosophy of Methodism can be sound which ignores 
the fact that under the earnest preaching of Wesleyan 
theology Methodism flourished as it has not, and can not 
where his theology is ignored, no matter what excuse is 
assigned for not preaching it. Methodism wanes where 
Wesley's theology is not preached explicitly, earnestly, 
constantly, experimentally. 

When we have worked Mr. Wesley's theology and 
polity to their utmost test and find they fail, it will be 
time enough to deny their consistency and put profess- 
ors in our theological chairs to teach new doctrines. 



32o METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



Preaching Wesleyan theology has produced a glorious 
history. Can the Professor prove that such preaching 
can not do so now ? Mr. Wesley formulated his spiritual 
experiences into a theology, and those who have those 
experiences understand his theology. His theology pro- 
duced certain experiences. It was those experiences 
which confounded other theologians. He revived the 
Pauline doctrines of justification, regeneration, adoption, 
sanctification, and the Johannine doctrine of salvation 
from the guilt, dominion, power and inbeing of sin by 
the blood of Jesus Christ. He restored the ethics of 
James's Gospel, and insisted that faith without works is 
dead. The facts are, Professor Tillett does not see any 
want of consistency in Mr. Wesley's theology except on 
the doctrine of entire sanctification. If he does, he has 
not said so. Has he tested the Wesleyan method of ex- 
periencing this grace? If not, he is not as sincere as he 
might be in arraigning it. If he assumes his reason is 
sufficiently sound to declare it false he is arrogant, and 
untrue to the spirit of Methodism. 

Professor John M. Faulkner, of Drew Theological 
University, says : "Wesley was one of the greatest of 
theologians, standing side by side with these four, Augus- 
tine, Thomas Aquinas, Calvin, and Arminius." As Paul 
stood for Christianity, so Mr. Wesley stood for a sound 
Scriptural exposition of its doctrines. His was a com- 
bination of academic reason and a "knowledge of" God's 
"will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding," con- 
firmed by personal experience. He was verily taught of 



PERSONAL SALVATION, 321 



God. Consequently there is no waste of words, or efforts 
at literary finish, no aim to be logical and consistent; he 
had something higher — the truth. His theology was made 
a standard for Methodism, not because of a servile fear 
of Mr. Wesley, but because they knew it was the truth ; 
and the only way Wesleyan theology can be set aside is 
for a holier man, closer to the Eternal, to give us a clearer 
vision of divine truth. 

The Methodist Church is a living monument to Wes- 
leyan theology, and trying to chip away its foundation 
stone is poor business for those who have said they have 
studied her doctrines, believe that they "are in harmony 
with Holy Scriptures," and voluntarily promised to 
"preach and maintain them." Could they enlarge, clarify, 
or bring out in new glory its doctrines and shed a greater 
light upon a solution of the great question of cleansing 
from sin, they would be honored. They have no zeal in 
urging others to embrace their negations ; all their strength 
is spent in denying positive truth. 

Like Paul, Mr. Wesley theologized his experiences 
because he believed the Bible was true. Mr. Wesley 
gives us a spiritual view of entire sanctification. Pro- 
fessor Tillett gives us an intellectual view. Mr. Wesley 
furnishes thousands of witnesses to prove his theory true. 
Professor Tillett none. 

He is concerned about the "endless discussions" over 
the Methodist doctrine of Christian perfection. There 
are but two ways to end it. One is, to cease referring to 
it. To do this we must cease studying and preaching the 
21 



322 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



Word of God. The other is to satisfy the soul by rinding 
the experience and lovingly tell others the way. Unless 
one is panting "like the hart pants for the water-brooks" 
for entire sanctification, but little can be gained by any 
discussion concerning it. We may silence witnesses, but 
we can not convince them that John Wesley was incon- 
sistent, unscholarly, or unsound. 

SHINE BY ITS OWN LIGHT. 

He says : 

"But Christian perfection is ethical ; it is living perfectly free 
from every sin and in the perfect discharge of every duty. And 
that life is made possible to every regenerate believer, is made 
possible by divine grace, and it is his privilege and duty from 
the very moment of his conversion. That life does not need to 
be 'professed.' It shines in its own light, a light that grows 
brighter and brighter unto the perfect day." 147 

Most certainly an ethical life "does not need to be 
professed," that would be Pharisaism. But the true source 
of an ethical life needs to be professed, for many reasons. 
If his theory is true that Mr. Wesley got his idea of in- 
stantaneous sanctification from some Methodists who 
professed to have received it instantly by faith, how im- 
portant, right or wrong, testimony must be ! Lawyers 
may plead points of law before a judge, but clients 
charged with violating law establish their guilt or inno- 
cence by the testimony of the witnesses. Bishop Newman, 
referring to holiness, said : "The secret power of Meth- 
odism is not in her doctrines, for they are as old as the 
Lord. Not in her itinerancy, for it is as old as the Apos- 



147 p. 465- 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 



323 



ties. Not in her love-feasts, for they are as old as the 
primitive Church; but rather in the word of her testi- 
mony !" 

It is not a good omen that, after one hundred and fifty 
years of marvelous growth under the preaching of entire 
sanctification, as taught by Mr. Wesley, and confirmed 
by a great cloud of witnesses of the most reliable charac- 
ter, the last twenty-five years have developed pronounced 
opposition to the preaching and profession of sanctifica- 
tion. The new theology has little to recommend it. It 
has no witnesses to its truthfulness, and in the meantime 
the Church has lost much of its spiritual life and fruit- 
fulness. 

Dr. Dale, the greatest English Congregationalist, and 
a thorough student of Methodism, said : "If Methodism 
had carried out its doctrine of entire sanctification in pub- 
lic as well as in private life, it would have effected the 
most profound and beneficent ethical revolution modern 
history has known." How ill it becomes our own 
teachers to oppose what great thinkers in other Churches, 
their intellectual superiors, deem as vital to our progress ! 

A life of "sinlessness'' requires a sinless nature. Tes- 
timony to how such a nature is obtained is due to every 
one seeking the same standard, of living. For myself, I 
do not care to use the term sinlessness. Professor Tillett 
uses it. To demand ethical perfection from the beginning 
as a divinely imposed duty, when he claims regeneration 
does not impart spiritual perfection, is to advocate a 
theology radically inconsistent. This Professor Tillett 



324 METHODIST THEOLOGY. • 



does. To be ethically perfect one must be spiritually per- 
fect. 

He most thoroughly believes that regeneration is a 
real, radical, instantaneous change wrought in the moral 
nature of man. He insists upon fruits commensurate 
with the marvelous change, far beyond anything many 
require. To be consistent he should say "that does not 
need to be 'professed.' It shines in its own light." If 
his sanctification is more than ethical and effects any sub- 
jective change, it must be professed to be known, or it 
is inconsistent to profess what God has wrought in re- 
generation. One can not observe the tendency of the 
times without noticing that since entire sanctification has 
been neglected there is a growing tendency to not witness 
to regeneration. It would be foolish to call all the relig- 
ious chatter of to-day testifying to a divine work wrought 
within. Not one in ten who talk to-day in religious meet- 
ings refer to any subjective change wrought by the Holy 
Spirit. We are congratulating ourselves on our ethics 
and ignoring the spiritual experiences. 

If the why of a testimony is not a matter of conscious- 
ness with Professor Tillett, on what ground does he ob- 
ject to it? Had he the experience of entire sanctification 
as taught by John Wesley, he would know why those 
who possess it profess the experience instead of letting it 
shine "in its own light." 



PERSONAL SALVATION. 325 



OBJECTIONS. 

I object to the statement that it is "impossible" for 
God to love us while we are sinful. 

I object to his contradictory definitions of holiness and 
sanctification, as something developed ; belonging to every 
believer from the moment of regeneration; results from 
right volitions and virtuous acts; impossible to glorify 
God without it, the perfect test being "doing perfectly 
the will of the Creator," while he says his will is carried 
out imperfectly here. 

I object to his theory which admits of no interval be- 
tween regeneration and holiness, by which interval we are 
made conscious that regeneration gives us dominion over 
sin. 

I object to his introducing a further radical and in- 
stantaneous work of grace subsequent to regeneration, 
for which he can provide no Scriptural name. 

I object to his distinction between the "normal" and 
"abnormal" regenerate. It is not found in the Scriptures 
and has no warrant for its existence in fact. Also to his 
stating that the normal regenerate life was never lived 
by any but Jesus Christ. 

I object to his admission of semi-willful sins in the 
regenerate state. 

I object to the misrepresentation of the advocates of 
entire sanctification when he insists that they hold "there 
is some sin then seen and known" in the regenerate. Not 
a single theologian in Methodism teaches any such thing ; 
nor that any man is "saved in sin." 



326 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



I object to his definition of entire sanctification as 
unbiblical, and as contradicted by the greatest scholars, 
and his definition as of an impossible attainment in this 
life. 

I object to his definitions of Christian perfection, be- 
cause he contradicts himself as I have shown. 

I object to his doctrine of maturity as unsustained by 
the Word of God, and as a contradiction of his own defi- 
nition. 

I object to his misrepresentation of Mr. Wesley's two 
sermons, "Sin in Believers," and "Repentance of Believ- 
ers." His quotations should include Mr. Wesley's clear 
statement that these things were in the sensibilities and 
not in acts. 

I object to his unhistorical statement that Mr. Wesley 
conceived his idea of instantaneous sanctification from 
certain Methodists professing to have experienced it. He 
examined .several, not to see whether it was instanta- 
neously wrought, but to see whether any obtained the 
grace gradually. He found none. 

I object to his statement that Mr. Wesley dropped the 
"instantaneous phase of sanctification fifteen years before 
he died. I have proved the statement untrue ; also that 
Thomas Maxfield and George Bell started the "instanta- 
neous sanctification movement." 

I object to his indorsement of schools of theology 
with no Church behind them, that are diametrically op- 
posed to Methodism, while he disparages John Wesley's 
theology indorsed by Methodism throughout the world. 



CONCLUSION. 



"It is one of the fundamental laws of moral and spiritual 
order, that nothing can be fully explained by the exercise of the 
intellect alone." — Earnest NavieeE, Eternal Life, pp. 180. 

"There are some truths, and these the most fundamental and 
vital, whose substance and form are unaffected by the vicissitudes 
of the ages. Like their Divine Author, they are the same yes- 
terday, to-day, and forever."— Bishop W. X. NindE, LL. D., Me- 
morial Vol. pp. 102. 

327 



"Unity and holiness are the two things I want among the 
Methodists. Who will rise up with me against all open or secret 
opposers of one or the other? Such are in truth, all prudent, all 
delicate, all fashionable, all half-hearted Methodists. My soul 
is weary of these murderers of the work of God. O let us go 
through with our work." — Tyerman's Life of Wesley. Vol. 2, 
p. 564. 

"The method of all the higher truths of religion is different, 
being the method of Faith ; a verification by the heart, and not 
by the notions of the head." "Nothing do we need so deeply 
as a reinauguration of the apostolic faith, and the spirit which 
distinguished the apostolic age."— Horace Bushneel, Nature and 
the Supernatural. Pp. 20, 33. 

328 



CHAPTER V. 



My task is done ; how well, the reader must determine. 
Subtle and dangerous assaults have been made upon our 
spiritual life which I have sought to expose and answer. 
An endeavor is made to have the Church ignore or dis- 
trust the subjective states wrought by the direct agency 
of the Holy Spirit, and witnessed to by Him. Sin is 
being treated as "unevolved animalism." Repentance is 
a mere change in one's thinking. Regeneration is mis- 
placed by "evolution." The witness of the Spirit is 
called "misguided emotion," inspired by a legal and not 
a moral idea. Faith is circumscribed by finite, fallible, 
illogical reason. Incarnation takes the place of Redemp- 
tion through the blood of the Lamb. Sanctification is de- 
nied in its various phases. Everything distinctively 
Methodistic is being questioned and the system of theology 
which cleared the moral sky of thousands of Christians in 
other folds, is being declared not self-consistent by its 
own teachers. 

A spiritual dearth has come over us which can not be 
removed by liberal giving, nor explained away by the 
theory that this is "a transitional age," or that we are 
"cleaning up the Church records," or that "the trend of 
the times is towards ethics and sociology." 

329 



330 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



We have grieved the Spirit of truth and holiness with 
our intellectual chatterings and our arrogant interroga- 
tion points. We have demanded that Divine manifesta- 
tions shall not transcend our reason, and denied God the 
right to make himself known through our moral sensi- 
bilities. We have suppressed almost to extinction our 
spiritual impulses ; checked the flight of our imaginations ; 
clipped the wings of our faith ; doubted the supernatural ; 
and required that nothing should be declared real in spir- 
itual life that to us is not a matter of personal conscious- 
ness. Spiritual exaltations have been cast into the list of 
emotions. Our Discipline is a dead letter. Some of our 
Conferences report a decrease in membership. New Eng- 
land Methodism, where much of this new theology is 
born, is slowly dying. Revivals are scarce. An increas- 
ing proportion of our members dance, play cards, attend 
theaters, absent themselves from revivals, from evening 
church services, prayer-meeting and class-meeting. The 
Sunday newspaper is devoured before church service, and 
with many has displaced family prayer. In many pulpits 
fads, sensational subjects, and extravagant methods are 
used to catch the masses, and what few are secured are 
sent away less susceptible to real Gospel influences than 
when they came. For long periods sermons are preached 
without a single appeal to the sinner to accept Christ 
Jesus now. Lectures have supplanted Gospel services, 
and it is not uncommon for revivals to be postponed for 
trifling entertainments. Unregenerate persons have se- 
cured membership and position in official ranks, who know 



CONCLUSION. 



33* 



nothing of the divine method of saving men, and are 
hindrances in soul-saving work. Doubt is frequently ex- 
pressed concerning the inerrancy of the Scriptures ; the 
Deityship of Jesus Christ ; the facts of spiritual conscious- 
ness, and the power of prayer ; while faith is declared to 
be intellectual weakness. We call it progress when wood, 
brick, stone and mortar are reared around our heads in 
beautiful proportions. We say we are emphasizing 
ethics. Where? Quite a few of our members gamble in 
business, and the Church frequently loses its influence in 
the community for years by one evening's questionable 
entertainment for raising money from a constituency sur- 
rounded by the luxuries of life. Several Churches do not 
have a single conversion in a year. Remarkable conver- 
sions are becoming rare. Candidates for our ministry 
are becoming scarce. Though the whole amount of our 
gifts increases yearly, it is in no reasonable proportion to 
the increase of our wealth ; really our so-called financial 
progress is retrogression. Many more of our members 
are backslidden over withholding from God his due. 

During the "Twentieth Century Thank Offering" we 
raised seven millions of dollars more than would have 
come through the ordinary channels of the Church, but 
where are the two million souls? With two years un- 
trammeled by political agitation, and great financial pros- 
perity, without a serious national calamity or a scourge 
to attract our time and attention, two millions of Meth- 
odists could not secure the conversion of one soul each as a 
net gain for Christ and the Church. Many of our preach- 



332 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



ers have ceased to hold revival services at all. With some 
of our members the Sabbath is a holiday spent in visit- 
ing relatives, taking advantage of cheap excursions, and 
many of our business men travel on the Sabbath to our 
centers of commerce for business purposes. Our com- 
plicity with the rum traffic is a glaring sin, as by silence 
and political affinity we perpetuate this "sum of all vil- 
lainies." 

How can we explain this condition of things other 
than that our spiritual life is extremely low and still on 
the wane? What is our cure? Mr. Wesley said: "It 
has been the experience of Methodism from the begin- 
ning that the ebb and flow of the spiritual life of the 
societies are measured by the prevalence or suspension 
of experimental witnessing." Professor James writes up 
a part of our history when he says, "A genuine first-hand 
religious experience like this is bound to be a hetrodoxy 
to its witnesses, the prophet appearing as a mere lonely 
madman. If his doctrine prove contagious and spread 
to any others, it becomes a definite and labeled heresy. 
But if it then still prove contagious enough to triumph 
over persecution, it becomes itself an orthodoxy; and 
when a religion has become an orthodoxy its day of in- 
wardness is over; the spring is dry; the faithful live as 
second-hand exclusively and stone the prophets in their 
turn. The new Church in spite of whatever human good- 
ness it may foster, can be henceforth counted on as a 
stanch ally in every attempt to stifle the spontaneous re- 
ligious spirit, and to stop all later bubblings of the foun- 



CONCLUSION. 



333 



tain from which in purer days it drew its own supply of 
inspiration." 1 This last clause states one of our diffi- 
culties ; we have left the fountains of inspiration, and some 
of these modern herdsmen are seeking to fill them to the 
mouth with the rubbish of higher criticism, and denials 
of the faith ; refusing to believe the witnesses, they seek 
to disprove their testimonies. Empty speculative bab- 
blings are uttered from pulpit, rostrum, and professor's 
chair, where positive truth should be uttered with the 
power of the Holy Spirit resting on the speaker, convinc- 
ing, and not creating doubt. The people perish for lack 
of spiritual knowledge. We have tried these theories, 
and from a practical fruit-bearing standpoint they are 
failures. How can doctrines which minify or ignore the 
consciousness of sin and place it in the list of animalism ; 
which ignore eternal punishment ; which insist upon the 
dignity instead of the depravity of man ; which slur sub- 
jective analysis and its discoveries; advocating a physical 
culture producing annually several murders; denying the 
atonement made in blood ; producing no living witnesses, — 
how can such doctrines produce the glorious victories of 
the past, and fill the Church with spiritual heroes ? Every 
true heart has a right to a conscious, personal fellowship 
with the true source of life, and no one can lead a soul in 
that direction who denies such fellowship. The priest 
of finite reasonings must as truly be set aside as the 
priest of ceremonialism. The Church whose members 
have a face-to-face view of God can not fail to be heard ; 

1 Varieties of Religious Experience, p. 337. 



334 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



the hungry souls of men need voices that speak to them 
from out of the unseen. This was the source of our early 
power; to this we must return if men hang upon our 
utterances for their deliverance from the bondage, power, 
and pollution of sin. What is written has been rewritten 
on the hearts of consecrated, trusting believers. They 
know the truth, and do not seek to be wise above what is 
written. From its secret springs with joy do they draw 
water from the wells of salvation. It is vanity to seek to 
be wise above what is written, and exceedingly disastious 
to ignore it. This modern crime of making the Head of 
the Church inferior in his understanding of the Scriptures 
to some professed member of the body is blasphemy. We 
will no longer consent to such an insult to the intelligence 
of th~ other members of His body. It is a sin that may be 
forgiven, but it should be speedily and heartily repented 
of by an open repudiation of those utterances which must 
have grieved the Spirit of God. 

The cry of ethics with its accompanying niceties of 
taste and style, must have its practical meaning uncloaked, 
viz. : Salvation by works. We must return to the nar- 
row way of salvation by faith, which produces such spir- 
itual, sudden, glorious transformations confounding hell, 
making heaven glad, curing worldliness, unholy ambi- 
tions and all unrighteousness, instantly and permanently. 
Wesley's sermon on "Salvation by Faith," preached in 
the spirit it was written by one who believed its contents, 
would astound multitudes of Methodists in our modern 
sanctuaries. 



CONCLUSION. 



335 



Leaders whose teachings neither convert nor sanc- 
tify are seeking to declare the theology which the Church 
must believe to be consistent. The spirit they seek to 
deny with their sophistry and false reasoning is the spirit 
which awoke Germany under Luther and England and 
America under Wesley, and is the only hope of the Church 
of to-day. 

Those of us who protest against the teachings and 
writings examined and reviewed in this volume, are not 
seeking something new. We desire to be loyal to the 
doctrines taught us from the cradle, and wrought into 
the very fiber of our spirit nature by glorious spiritual 
transformations. We do not seek leadership, we seek 
the truth. We will follow any leader the Church ap- 
points who will lead us according to her own teachings. 
We were intelligent when we voluntarily accepted our 
doctrines and placed ourselves under their teachings. But 
others, untrue to their vows voluntarily assumed, can 
not lead us. Should the Church indorse them it should 
count well the cost. 

What would transpire if Mr. Wesley's advice should be 
followed in some of our Methodist congregations. "If such 
a minister should at any time deliberately, and of set pur- 
pose, endeavor to establish absolute predestination, or to 
confute Scriptural perfection ; then I advise all Methodists 
in the congregation quietly to go out." Some have already 
done so, to the detriment of themselves and the Church. 
No organized separation from the Church has occurred 
upon doctrinal grounds, but nearly every society in Meth- 



336 METHODIST THEOLOGY 



odism is spiritually divided over such doctrines as we have 
written against. Ministers with opposite doctrines succeed 
one another; one discourages what the other encourages. 
The same religious periodical indorses opposite theories 
concerning the same doctrine. Our "Review" indorsed 
Dr. Daniel Steele's "Half Hours with St. Paul" as "thor- 
oughly orthodox, highly spiritual, and written out of 
much fullness of knowledge, both of the Bible and Chris- 
tian experience." In the same pamphlet he says : "Growth 
in Holiness," by Dr. James Mudge, is "one of the man- 
liest books ever written." Dr. Mudge says Dr. Steele's 
"Half Hours" and his "Growth in Holiness" are "wholly 
irreconcilable." To be loyal to such a religious editor is 
impossible. If we have unity we must have oneness of 
faith and doctrine. No amount of liberty entitles one 
to write against doctrines he is sworn to defend, without 
the consent of the Church he professes to serve. If one 
has a conviction that he is in possession of some truth 
not believed by the Church, yea in opposition to what 
the Church teaches, and he values it as essential to his 
welfare and the welfare of others to teach it, let him re- 
lieve the Church of all responsibility by going outside its 
pale, and sustain his sense of honor; but for one to ar- 
raign the doctrines he voluntarily professed to believe, 
and promised to defend, and to use his influence to over- 
throw them while under the protection of the Church, is 
so dishonorable that no right of private judgment can 
excuse it from blameworthiness. No titles prefixed or 
affixed to any name in Methodism confer the right to 



CONCLUSION. 



337 



openly assail her doctrines, and the Church that would 
allow such persons to grieve the loyal mass of its con- 
stituency must be blind to its best interest, and fails to 
protect those whose inability to formulate a sound sys- 
tem of theology has caused them to commit this sacred 
trust to her hands. Every Church has a large following 
who must depend upon the ability, honor, and purity of 
its leaders to keep them sound in the faith. It is a most 
sacred trust and under no consideration should it be be- 
trayed. To do so must greatly imperil the spiritual life 
of its constituency. The Presbyterian Church has arisen 
in her strength and purged herself from heresies no more 
pernicious than Professor Bowne teaches (and others in 
our fold who have not been reviewed for want of room 
and time), and God is arousing it to undertake the great- 
est evangelistic movement in its history. 

The Wesleyan Methodist societies, anticipating pos- 
sible heresy protected themselves against such by the 
following resolution: "No person shall, on any account, 
be permitted to retain any official situation in our socie- 
ties who hold opinions contrary to the total depravity of 
human nature, the Divinity and Atonement of Christ, the 
influence and witness of the Holy Spirit, and Christian 
Holiness as believed by the Methodists." 2 Could the 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
pass such a resolution to-day? and if passed would it be 
enforced? Professor Bowne denies all these cardinal 
doctrines of Methodism. Dr. Huntington is not sound 

2 Arminian Mag., Vol. XXX, p, 431 
22 



338 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



concerning all of them, and several ministers who have 
not expressed themselves in print defend their un-Meth- 
odistic teachings. When Dr. Agar Beet in his "Last 
Things," taught that the Scriptures did not positively 
leach the eternal punishment of the sinner, the Wesleyan 
Methodist Connection gave him the privilege of recalling 
his utterances or vacate his chair in their college. 

When the Church cares to, it may undertake to answer 
every speculation a fertile imagination may evolve, but 
it is under no obligation to do so. The theology of our 
Church is not the product of a moment or the dream of 
a night; framed in a university from a most scholarly 
study of the original, tested by two centuries of experi- 
ence, indorsed by leaders of other Churches, unimpeached 
up to this day, demonstrated by a marvelously spiritual 
constituency, practical, clear, Scriptural. Assaulted by 
doubters, mocked by scoffers, denied by unbelievers, it 
stands forth with its challenge to "try me and prove me 
now, herewith." Nor do the millions who have rallied 
to its standard demand any change. They ask that it 
may be applied, earnestly, constantly, faithfully. If other 
Churches do not hold to our standard of Christian perfec- 
tion, in their most religious gatherings, they press toward 
the mark for the prize of our high calling of God in 
Christ Jesus. Dr. Dale, the greatest English Congrega- 
tionalist, charged us with unfaithfulness to this doctrine 
of later years. Without it as the conservator of ortho- 
doxy our Bible is being torn to pieces, its glorious his- 
tory called a myth, its miracles called legends, its Teacher 



CONCLUSION. 



339 



fallible, its Christ robbed of his Deityship. Arrogant, 
vain intellectualism, with no stronger type of spirituality 
than an interrogation point, assumes to charge with un- 
reasonableness and want of self-consistency our great 
leader, whom God continues to delight to honor and whose 
teachings and doctrines lost none of their potency when 
he passed to his glorious reward. Let the members of 
the next General Conference gird up the loins of their 
minds and be sober, let them crowd the devotional meet- 
ings; be too spiritual to repeat the scenes connected with 
the discussion of the removal of Paragraph 248 from the 
Discipline ; let them give to their constituency a clear 
doctrinal statement of every doctrine assailed by recent 
writers within our ranks. If our Articles of Religion are 
satisfactory let them demand that they be preached, and 
that no one shall remain among us who preaches against 
them. 

It may have been an oversight, but I believe that is 
not its inner history, that the Pastoral Address of the last 
General Conference omitted, for the first time in our his- 
tory, to refer to entire sanctification as a grace obtainable 
now, and believers encouraged to seek it. Is not doc- 
trinal consistency and unity as essential, and more so, 
than to discover what is the Constitution of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church? 

We are afraid to be called "narrow." Adam Clarke 
was right when he said, "I have lived more than three- 
score years and ten ; I have traveled a good deal, both by 
land and sea ; I have conversed with and seen many people, 



34o METHODIST THEOLOGY. 

in and from different countries; I have studied the prin- 
ciple religious systems in the world; I have read much, 
thought much, and reasoned much, and the result is I am 
persuaded of the simple unadulterated truth of no book 
but the Bible ; and of the true excellence of no system of 
religion but that contained in the Holy Scriptures; and 
especially Christianity which is referred to in the Old 
Testament and fully revealed in the New. And while I 
think well and wish well to all religious sects and parties, 
and especially all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sin- 
cerity; yet from a long and thorough knowledge of the 
subject I am led most conscientiously to conclude that 
Christianity itself, as existing among those called Wes- 
leyan Methodists, is the purest, safest, that which is most 
to God's glory and the benefit of mankind ; and that, both 
as to the creed there professed, form of discipline there 
established, and the consequent moral practice there vin- 
dicated. And I believe that among them is to be found 
the best form and body of divinity that has ever existed 
in the Church of Jesus Christ, from the promulgation of 
Christianity to the present day. To him who would say, 
'Dr. Clarke, are you not a bigot?' without hesitation I 
would answer, 'No; I am not, for by the grace of God 
I am a Methodist.' Amen." 3 

Our fear of being called bigots has permitted a theo- 
logical liberality that has fostered Unitarianism in our 
own breasts. This is not the time for metapshysical dis- 
quisitions and refinements ; our times call loudly for a 

3 Armiuian Mag., 1832, p. 766. 



CONCLUSION. 



34i 



clear, pronounced declaration of every evangelical truth 
we have so jealously guarded and preached from the be- 
ginning. Silence toward those who assail our doctrines 
within our ranks, is strong indorsement. Personal vital 
piety is essential to us as a people ; to secure this, we must 
have sound doctrine. While needing great wisdom in ap- 
plying the truth to the various classes in our charge, we 
must not for one moment tolerate the dissemination of 
doctrines contrary to what we teach is the truth in Jesus. 
We have yielded too much already to the ignorant, the 
indolent, the selfish, the carnal, and the worldly-minded. 
I was not surprised to hear Professor Bowne advocate 
a reasonable amount of attendance upon theaters, card- 
parties, and dancing-parties. Nor his statement that 500,- 
000 intelligent Methodists would bring the rest to terms 
on these questions. Such things could not harm his fol- 
lowers. 

For two years we have raised our cry of distress. The 
Bishops called us to our knees, our presses teemed with 
articles explaining our losses numerically; preachers' 
meetings discussed the facts thoroughly. Optimists 
laughed and compared centuries; other Churches raised 
a similar cry; still the disease holds its fatal grip on our 
hearts. An occasional revival of reasonable spiritual suc- 
cess breaks the dull monotony, and we settle back to our 
vast organizations and superb machinery to work, work, 
work, until our work comes between us and our spiritual 
life, and God is lost to our view. 

I can not say when this will change. If this is a transi- 



342 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



tional age, it should come soon. The changes we are at 
present passing through, in the past came to the Catholic 
Church, the German Lutheran Church, the Established 
Church of England, until from within, faith reasserted 
itself, a new life appeared, and supernatural grace began 
to flow everywhere. New bottles caught the new wine, 
and for a period the new wine was preserved. Are ma- 
jorities so constituted that after two centuries they be- 
come self-destructive ? Must a new minority from within 
undertake for God and truth? We must cease the cry 
"Back to Pentecost," "Back to Christ ;" to go back at all is 
impossible. The pessimism that sits in the dust mourning 
is as fatal and fruitless as the optimism that sees no evil 
ahead and rushes on to ruin. We must stop and look at 
the facts. No one thing can account for our condition. 
For a long time certain conditions have been leavening 
the whole lump. I will mention a few : 

(i) Indifference, ripening into opposition, to the doc- 
trine of entire sanctification ; (2) lack of thoroughness in 
the work of regeneration; (3) laxity in the administra- 
tion of discipline; (4) marriage with unbelievers; (5) 
omission of class-meetings; (6) no family devotions; (7) 
attendance upon theaters, dancing and card parties; (8) 
a self-seeking, hireling ministry, refusing to preach the 
whole Gospel ; (9) fellowship with those who deny our 
doctrines; (10) Christless leaders in the sanctuary serv- 
ices ; (11) questionable entertainments in the church ; 
(12) unscriptural methods for raising money; (13) 
looseness in examining the spiritual life of candidates for 



CONCLUSION. 



343 



our ministry; (14) love of the world; (15) disrespect 
for those in authority; (16) too much power vested in 
unspiritual laymen; (17) the Sunday newspaper and 
trains patronized by our members; (18) pronounced self- 
indulgence in eating, smoking, dress, and levity; (19) 
literary and artistic pursuits for mere pastime ; (20) a 
general spirit of worldliness, and at present; (21) false 
doctrines. 

In a more or less degree we are under the influence 
of all these evils. We had none of them when we com- 
menced our marvelous history. It is said our General 
Conference is becoming more and more a gathering for 
the transaction of business; then it will become less and 
less of a spiritual force throughout the Church. It is as 
sacredly under obligation to give tone to the spiritual life 
of the Church as to guard any violations of its constitu- 
tion. Methodism is pre-eminently a type of spiritual 
life, and its organization an appropriate form of mani- 
festing that life. We can not change it. It must be 
"Christianity in earnest," or a dead sect. Do these re- 
visers of our theology know that they must hide our past 
history, take the heart out of our hymns, or achieve as 
glorious victories as our fathers to establish the right to 
change our beliefs, and compel us to proclaim our fathers 
unsound in the faith of the Gospel. Let them give us 
more light and we will walk in it. Let them lead us to 
holier heroism and we will follow them. Let them excel 
in cross-bearing, and suffering for righteousness sake. 
Let shem show us better how to fill our empty pews, and 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



to lead men to righteousness and holy living. Let them 
start some abandoned family altars, or more successfully 
reach the common masses. Let them inspire a larger 
faith in God's Word, or reveal a more glorious Gospel 
than the early Methodist fathers. Let them do some- 
thing more than question and cavil and deny. In the 
meantime we will stand on the foundations they seek to 
overthrow. More than once has Zion sat in the ashes of 
the ruin its own hands have wrought. I shall most em- 
phatically protest against the destroyers of our faith, and 
be true to it unto death. Such are my states of conscious- 
ness, that could these iconoclasts destroy in me what I 
have so long asserted is the truth, I must blame the 
Church for teaching me such falsehood. Thousands 
within the fold will turn and rend it if it sanctions these 
deniers of the faith. Souls in distress can not be trifled 
with. They can sympathize with the honest doubter seek- 
ing light, but can not endure the one who mocks at the 
cry of the heart. Hands will tremblingly lift the knocker 
of other doors when the rationalistic teachings of these 
writers become the only answer to the heart's earnest cry. 
We can furnish our own interrogation points out of "an 
evil heart of unbelief ;" what we need more than anything 
else now is holy heroes to inspire a sublime faith. May 
God keep far away the day when having walked in noon- 
day splendor we must grope in the cool glare of clouded 
moonbeams. The teachers who make legends of God's 
dealings in history will cloud the minds with doubt as 
to the verities of heaven, and cast long shadows across 



CONCLUSION. 



345 



the pathway of our earthly life. The teacher who tells 
me Christ was mistaken concerning Old Testament Scrip- 
tures will leave me uncertain concerning the unfulfilled 
promises of the New Testament. 

Professor Bowne gives me no key to the divine life. 
He leads into an abyss. He holds my hand firmly as I 
walk alone the path of reason, but will never lead me 
through the wicket gate into the narrow but glorious path 
of faith. He asks me to sing with shepherds on the 
plains, but not with the blood-washed throng in the New 
Jerusalem. I can believe all the positive truth he pro- 
claims and gain nothing. I possess spiritual knowledge, 
he asks me to surrender it to gratify his claim to superior 
reasoning powers. Were he great in the truth, his mes- 
sages would bring something more to the humblest, weak- 
est child of God. His doctrines create no inward har- 
monies, yea less, they only awaken intellectual antago- 
nisms. To the soul without a Christian consciousness to 
reject them, they are a snare, and to place trustful, inex- 
perienced young ministers under such teaching is a crime 
with the awful penalty of an unscriptural constituency 
following their leadership. The souls of trusting men 
were not created to speculate with. He who trusts loves 
while he trusts. How faithful we have been to that con- 
fidence in the past, a following noted for their affection 
one toward another alone can tell. Great faith and great 
love are inseparable. The teachings we refute have noth- 
ing in them to inspire great faith. They minify Christ 
and Christian experience. We cry out for the faith "once 



346 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



for all delivered to the saints." Professor Bowne is a 
metaphysician, not a moral philosopher ; were he this he 
would be bound to recognize the experiences his theory 
denies. Yea, were he such a moral philosopher as the 
task he undertakes demands he should be, he would test 
those experiences by the methods the witnesses assure 
him they were received. 

Our highest knowlelge is not the product of great 
reasoning; it comes through the doorway of faith. No 
soul can reason itself into the possession of the realities 
which faith reveals, while many have reasoned away what 
they possessed, with all the blessing these realities afford. 
In spiritual things faith precedes reason, in the intellec- 
tual world reason precedes faith. Facts, not syllogisms, 
inspire faith in the spiritual world. Professor Bowne 
would deprive us of the facts upon which our faith rests, 
and which have made our past glorious. 

Not one of these writers declare a single fact that 
would entitle them to leadership. They would have 
blessed us if they had only emphasized anew the posi- 
tive teaching of our illustrious leader. This refined law- 
lessness should cease and our doctrines be preached by 
those under vows to do so, and not publicly denied. Ours 
is a demonstrated religion. It is too late to speculate 
concerning it. Ten thousand altars with fire kindled 
from the skies, have proved that we are the servants of 
the Most High, and that our doctrine is of God. We 
rallied to the standard of "the man of one book," a scholar 
who believed its sayings; a preacher who declared its 



CONCLUSION. 



347 



whole counsels; a leader who stood himself in the hard- 
est places ; a moral hero whose glory does not wane as 
the centuries pass. A man whose loving, unselfish, sac- 
rificing life we gladly lift to the gaze of the whole world. 
Two hundred volumes have come from the press in the 
last twenty-five years honoring his name. The bi-cen- 
tennial of his birth finds his glory increasing. Noting 
the various preparations as they were made for this cele- 
bration, the "Christian Work" said : "Nor should the oc- 
casion be ignored by the Presbyterians, Congregational- 
ists, and Baptists. To be sure, Wesley was an Arminian, 
but, when we recall the fact that nineteen occupants of 
Presbyterian pulpits in Greater New York have come 
from Methodism, it will be seen that there is no good 
reason why the centenary of one who really belongs to 
the whole Christian world should not at least be noticed 
by Protestant Christians the world over." Not an hon- 
ored theologian in Methodism has publicly indorsed Drs. 
Huntington, Mudge, Tillett, Boland, and those who ar- 
raign Mr. Wesley as inconsistent in his doctrine, and 
while I write Professor Bowne is under charges for 
heresy. Verily such is the end of those who lower God's 
standards, and exalt reason above faith. 

Methodism needs only to be true to herself. Her doc- 
trine is Scriptural, demonstrated, God-honored. Its day 
of spiritual power is not necessarily past. It may arise, 
shake off the dust from its garments, separate itself from 
the world, cleanse its sancturies, preach explicitly, 
strongly, constantly, believingly its glorious doctrines; 



348 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



test its largest faith and cease its doubt; rally its wit- 
nesses, many of whom have been driven to find an oppor- 
tunity to testify to their experiences outside its church 
walls ; return to the simplicity of the Gospel ; develop its 
affectional life which in spiritual life is superior to reason ; 
encourage holy enthusiasm; live in the supernatural. 
Perfect love, my brethren, not perfect reason, gave us 
our hold upon the masses ; it will do so again. Love 
-kills distrust, makes us jubilant, charms us away from 
worldliness, satisfies the longing heart, makes sacrifice 
for another's good a bliss. It needs no worldliness to 
satisfy it, no vanity to give it charm, no ease to rest it. 
No frown can rob it of its smile, no labor of its rest. It 
sits entranced 'mid nature's beauties, but finds its glories 
up rickety staircases, seeking fallen men and sharing 
human miseries. 

Methodism born in a university should ever be the 
handmaid of the highest education, but it should remem- 
ber that the highest education can only be attained through 
securing the greatest possible goodness. Great theologies 
come through great spiritual transformations. The lit- 
erature this volume protests against is not of this char- 
acter; it denies the source from whence such theology 
comes. Methodism received its theology from a critical 
study of the original ; it remained in the mind a cold be- 
lief leading to religious austerities until the Wesleys had 
their hearts "strangely warmed." Love divine illumined 
its beliefs, cleared its spiritual vision, embraced the world 
as its parish, found a reason in the heart of God why all 



CONCLUSION. 



349 



men should come to the knowledge of the truth, preached 
a free, full salvation from all sin, cleansing from all filthi- 
ness of flesh and spirit, and holiness of heart and life, by 
faith. It won its way. Ecclesiasticism fought it, theol- 
ogies denounced it, the mob assaulted it. It won its way. 
The world hated it because it had no fellowship with it, 
but could not deprive itself of witnessing its holy joy. It 
came to mock it, it staid to pray. It was too busy 
preaching the truth to deal with speculative theology. It 
had an experience of divine things to relate, the witnesses 
knew they were declaring the truth. It won its way. 
Their logic was not faultless, but their love was perfect. 
Not their logic, but their love to God and to one another 
bound them together. They knew little and cared less 
about sociology as a science; they had a fellowship far 
more practical and serviceable than our modern sociology 
produces. With all our theories of social science we are 
becoming more and more a people of class distinctions. 
Methodism which rejected the doctrine of the universal 
Fatherhood of God, taught by Professor Bowne, raised 
up a stronger brotherhood of love than the brotherhoods 
combined of to-day are doing. Without being organized 
into a "Brotherhood" it was merciful to the criminal, had. 
sympathy for the fallen, compassion for the suffering, sac- 
rificed for the sinful, self-renunciation for the poor. Re- 
store the Methodism these writers are seeking to destroy 
and we will have prayer-meetings with the poor, with un- 
ostentatious supplying of need instead of charity balls 
with public display of gifts secured by feeding unholy 



350 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



passions. Instead of young men murdering one another 
in foot-ball games, and young women giddily walking 
the streets, gaudily dressed, learning to be idlers, thank- 
less, without affection, we will have modest, earnest lov- 
ers of pleasures which God approves, visitors of the sick, 
destitute parts of the city, tract distributors and leaders of 
religious services in out of the way places. Our Meth- 
odist universities, colleges, and seminaries will prohibit 
dancing; our young people will be dutiful to parent, and 
intelligently preparing for the solemn responsibilities of 
life so soon to overtake them. 

Instead of a Sunday newspapei we will have the class- 
meeting before preaching; instead of Christless singers 
who care nothing for the sentiment of the grandest hymns 
in the world, but everything for their personal appear- 
ance, who laughingly sit up during prayers, and visit dur- 
ing the ministry of the Word, while facing the congrega- 
tion, we will have congregational singing, the congrega- 
tion making melody in their hearts unto the Lord. Offi- 
cial leaders will be the spiritual leaders in great moral 
conflicts and spiritual battles. Ministers will neither 
betray, nor be betrayed by the Church, but as burning and 
shining lights, with a holy, happy constituency, will wor- 
ship the Lord in the beauty of holiness. Prayer-meeting 
will not be held in the hidden corners of the Church with 
a dim light leading through dark entrances, provided no 
other attraction sets it aside. 

Come, my brethren, let us rally again around our 
leader. One hundred and fifty years of critical study of 



CONCLUSION. 



35* 



his life, polity, doctrine, and the history they have pro- 
duced, make him to us more than ever "a man sent from 
God, whose name was John. The same came for a wit- 
ness, to bear witness of the Light;" too modest to call 
himself a theologian, being sent as "a witness ;" too expe- 
rienced in the things of God to deny any other witness 
to the truth; too humble to emphasize his own subjective 
states while God was raising up thousands of witnesses 
about him who had not a doctrine to conserve, but a 
glorious life to live ; too brave to falter in the path of duty 
even in the face of death ; too dependent upon the atoning 
blood of Christ to even mention his apostolic labors in 
the hour of death ; too unselfish to be distrusted by his 
followers ; too sacrificing to wish for more at his death 
than his funeral expenses; too true to his doctrinal con- 
victions to hold fellowship with those who denied the 
faith he declared, though they were relatives or personal 
friends ; too zealous for God and unity among the socie- 
ties to not assume responsibility in administering disci- 
pline and defending the doctrine, though he would gladly 
have placed the responsibility elsewhere; too loyal to the 
Church to effect a separation from it though often be- 
sought to do so; too far above the dim spiritual lights 
whose vanity made them believe they were his superior 
to bring against them a railing accusation, but too faith- 
ful to let them disturb the peace of his followers. Come 
on, my brethren. No such a light has arisen among us 
as our leader and founder under God. John Wesley, a 
witness sent of God, the poet, singer, preacher, evangel- 



352 METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



ist, administrator, theologian, and servant of all ; received 
by the world as a prophet foretelling good things, chang- 
ing the theologies of the world because they found the 
experiences he preached were true. England has sought 
to atone for its blindness and carved in stone touched with 
gold words of honor to cover the nicknames they called 
him. Gladly would they receive his dust from our hands 
and put it in their sacred places as the lawful return to 
what to his dying day he insisted was his Church. 

O ye "murderers of the work of God," drop your 
pens dipped in reproach for our leader. Is not the man 
your peer, yea, your superior. It is too late to deny the 
soundness of his theology relating to personal salvation. 
Many of his epistles read and known of all men — your 
peers, yes, your superiors in spiritual understanding, your 
peers in learning, in moral achievements and ethical 
beauty, proving the soundness of Wesley's theology by 
the holiness of their lives, know what you declare is not 
the truth. They have borne with your infidelities to the 
vows they have faithfully kept and conserved the spirit- 
ual life you seek to destroy. You have gone too far, ye 
are not witnesses, but disclaimers ; go back to your states 
of consciousness and judge yourselves, not others. "Thy 
speech bewrayeth thee;" speak for yourselves, not an- 
other. We contend not for ourselves. To Us your de- 
nials are too late, they awaken our pity, and when you 
fail to be courteous and truthful, our contempt; but we 
shall not consent to have the truth denied by those who 
could not belong to us unless they professed to believe 



CONCLUSION. 



353 



it. When you prayerfully, humbly approach the sacred 
precincts of our soul's experiences to compare spiritual 
things with spiritual, we will seek our highest mutual 
good. With us reason and philosophy are essentially 
secondary in the presence of an experience which God 
himself has wrought within us. Neither your reason nor 
your philosophy can add anything to the clearness of our 
faith. "We believe, therefore have we spoken." We 
claim the high privilege of protesting against bold unbe- 
lief in the name of the theology that taught us to believe. 
God has spoken to us, and your distrust violates our fel- 
lowship. We obtain by faith and prayer what you have 
utterly failed to reach by reason. Even so, we rest on 
this credential of a divine grace, for faith is the evidence 
of the unseen and the universal door to spiritual life in a 
limited or abundant measure. A greater than Mr. Wesley 
with vast reasoning powers, has his visions, saw things 
he could not utter, and talked personally with our exalted 
Lord. These things are the inheritance of the affectional 
nature and not of the intellectual. These brethren assail- 
ing our spiritual life admit that their writings are their 
reasons, not their experiences. We have a perfect right 
to place facts against reasons and nothing to fear from 
the consequences. Wesley and his followers profess to 
feel what they teach. Had John Calvin experienced what 
Wesley and his coadjutors did, there would have been no 
historic place for Methodism. The spiritual antithesis 
between Calvin and Wesley put experimental religion to 
the severest test it has passed through since the dawn of 
23 



354 METHODIST THEOLOGY . 



Christianity. I need not mention the sequel. The one 
taught the dualism in an intenser form that Drs. Hunt- 
ington, Mudge, Boland, and Tillett are seeking to restore 
to the religious world. The other taught purity of heart 
and intention and he has modified the teachings of the 
first until on a common platform of experience we meet 
in sweetest fellowship. We know Mr. Wesley was right, 
as many outside our fold do, yea, contrary to their theol- 
ogy they have felt the cleansing of their natures and at 
once saw in Wesleyan theology a sound formula by which 
to express their experiences. Too late, my brethren, too 
late, you may reject but you can not disprove a real ex- 
perience. We bear the sense of the reality, a something 
we may imperfectly express, but when sophistry tempts 
us to doubt what it is, it reasserts itself as an assurance. 

Let these few open opposers go out from us if they 
are not of us, and gather their constituency and like Mr. 
Wesley demonstrate their right to a separate existence. 
They claim to be scholars, they can found schools, write 
commentaries (though before they do that they must de- 
cide what is Scripture and what legend), fight opposi- 
tion, quicken Churches, suppress crime, transform mobs, 
and secure supernatural attestations to their right theol- 
ogies. But, we will no longer allow them to misrepre- 
sent our theology, our leader, and our experiences. They 
have been trusted and have betrayed that trust. Liberty 
of speech is a civil, religious, and constitutional privilege 
accorded to all men by a true Christian love, and our ul- 
timate triumph as a Church will be accomplished by the 



CONCLUSION. 



355 



persuasion that we possess the truth as it is in Jesus. But 
when men voluntarily answer the following questions af- 
firmatively, to secure membership into a body of believ- 
ers who most heartily believe their doctrine, and only seek 
such as will aid in their dissemination and then in public 
print deny those doctrines, they are violators of their 
own honor and of the Discipline they promised to obey. 
The questions are these : "Have you studied the doctrines 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church ? After full examina- 
tion do you believe that our doctrines are in harmony 
with the Holy Scriptures? Will you preach and main- 
tain them? Do you unfeignedly believe all the canonical 
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments ?" 

Professor Bowne does not believe Articles two, five, 
seven, eight, eighteen, and twenty, in our statement of 
doctrines. Dr. Huntington denies some of these. It is 
useless for such men to hope to see the day when these 
shall not be the doctrines of Methodism. The General 
Conference has no power here. It can not alter the first 
Article, which reads thus : "The General Conference 
shall not revoke, alter, nor change our Articles of Relig- 
ion, nor establish any new standards or rules of doctrine 
contrary to our present existing and established standards 
of doctrine." They can only do one thing honorably and 
remain with us, and that is to accept our doctrines and 
preach them. Loyalty or separation is the only honorable 
course. If we have blundered in placing ourselves thus 
in the first place, let these men devise a plan by which 
they can be honorable, serve the Church, conserve the 



356 



METHODIST THEOLOGY. 



best interests of the entire membership and preserve union 
and peace, but, as we are now constituted no man can do 
this and deny "our Articles of Religion, nor establish any 
new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present 
and established standards." 

We impose on those coming to us from other Churches 
for the recognition of their orders that they give us "sat- 
isfactory evidence of their agreement with us in Doctrine 
and Discipline," because our welfare requires it. Can we 
do less with our own and keep faith with the religious 
world? Methodism can not change its doctrines to suit 
its entire constituency. Every sound ecclesiastical court, 
and surely, our highest civil courts, with Article one be- 
fore them, must decide that those who teach and preach 
"our present existing and established standards of doc- 
trine" are the true members of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. 

Let us have harmony and peace among ourselves to 
insure the favor of God ; our Doctrine and Discipline are 
workable. All we need is grace and love to use them as 
our illustrious founder under God did, and in his own lan- 
guage, "Let us go through with our work/' 



TRUTHS AS I HAVE SEEN THEM 



3Bl? IRev. (5. TO. TOUson. 

256 PAGES. 
For sale by Author, 602 W. High Street, Urbana, Ills. 
Mailed to any address for price, $1.00. For sale by all Book Concerns. 

I want to express my thanks for the publishing of your book. I am glad God has 
raised up some one to express my inner thoughts, if I could not do it myself. — Dr. J. 
C. Briggs. 

I have read "Truths as I Have Seen Them" sufficiently to be able to express an 
intelligent opinion of its merits. To me it has been a rare intellectual treat. It is a 
book to be not only read, but studied. I have seldom read a book on the common 
topics of which it treats, so clear, original and convincing. It is a book which will live 
while the subjects it discuses command the attention of thinking people. — Rev. Wil- 
liam McDonald, D.D. 

I am reading your book, "Truths as I Have Seen Them," with interest and profit. 
It ought to have a wide reading. — Rev. Wm. M. Erskine. 

I am just reading Brother Wilson's new book. It is solid and substantial throughout. 
The author's style is readable and clear as crystal. He moves along high lines of 
thought, especially in Chapters, i, 2, 8, 12, 19 where his discussions show him to be a deep 
thinker. The errors now current on divine healing, death to self — the relation of 
the senses and passions to holiness, etc., are exposed and brought to light. The author 
makes but little use of figures, or flowing rhetoric, but reasons clear through his theme. 
The book ought to be read and studied by every thinking man, and intelligent profcsscr 
of holiness. — Rev. Robert L. Moore. 

This book, which I am happy to have the honor of introducing to the religious public, 
is a condensed presentation of sermons, evidently written according to the advice given 
to the students of Lane Theological Seminary, by Dr. Lyman Beecher: "Students, 
pum ) yourselves full of the subject, knock out the bung, and let nature caper." I pre- 
dict that this book will be a blessing to every candid reader, who is of the truth. The 
writer makes this prediction because he finds the hours spent with the proof sheets 
to be a season of delightful communion of the Holy Spirit ; truths which are good elec- 
tric conductors from heaven to me will not fail to be the media of great grace to others. 
— Rev. Daniel Steele, D.D. 

The new book by Rev. G. W. Wilson is a rare work, and has been read by myself 
and wife with much interest and profit. Brother Wilson, with his sharp comprehensive 
mind, writes excellently well. His book is no commonplace rehash of what others have 
written, but is strongly marked with originality. I wish every preacher in Methodism 
might read and master it. It contains a wide range of topics, and will bear digesting 
and reading several times. The chapter on " Divine Healing " is worth the price of the 
book. The author's experience is admirably given at the close. — Rev. J. A. Wood. 

The book shows marvellous research. — Pentecostal Herald. 

A glance at the table of Contents will show a wide range of important topics, which 
are treated earnestly and thoughtfully. The author has for years enjoyed the experience 
of perfect love, and one of the most interesting chapters is that in which he modestly 
tells his own inner history. — New York Christian Advocate. 

I predict that your book will rank among the thoughtful holiness people, as a classic 
on that theme. — Rev. C- J. Fowler. 



THE SIGN OF THY COMING, 

OR, 

Premillennialism Unscriptural and Unreasonable. 

By the same author. 

"This is the thesis defended by the Rev. G. W. Wilson, and which is intro- 
duced by the late Bishop Ninde. The author deprecates the revival of the error 
of premillennialism, believing it materialistic in tendency, and regarding it as a 
great menace to spiritual faith. He wishes to make his interpretation of the true 
teaching of Scripture plain to every reader, thus furnishing weapons to him. 
Bishop Ninde says the author has sifted all the false claims, shirking no difficulty, 
and showing how thoroughly a just exegesis proves the temerity and groundless! 
ness of the doctrine of the premillennial reign of Christ." — The Christian Advocate 

"George W. Wilson has undertaken an important but difficult theme in his recent 
volume, ' The Sign of Thy Coming.' He undertakes to prove that premillennialism 
is unscriptural and unreasonable. It is a hopeful sign that the Church is awaken- 
ing to concern itself with this subject. There has long been a too general neglect 
and silence. As a result, faddists have had their way. These discussions by 
honest and capable men will help. Bishop Ninde wrote an introduction in which 
he commends the work." — Epworth Herald. 

" My dear Brother Wilson, I am very grateful to you for a copy of ' 1 he Sign 
of Thy Coming.' In my opinion it meets very completely a real need. There can 
be no question that the advocates of premillennialism are exceedingly dilhgent, and 
it seems to me unscrupulous, in their efforts to propagate their false notions, which 
are usually based on false interpretations of the Scriptures. I especially com- 
mend your clear, concise, cogent, and earnest presentation of the truth as found in 
the Bible I am quite sure the book may be read with great profit by those who 
are in any degree inclined to consider favorably the pernicious doctrines which it 
exposes and antagonizes." — Bishop W F. Mallalieu. 

" I have been a pronounced premillennialist of thirty years' standing. I can 
now see why I could not get right while accepting this modern delusion. It cru- 
cifies Him afresh, and puts Him to an open shame." — D. W. Aldrich. 

"I am reading your original contribution to sound doctrine, 'The Sign of Thy 
Coming.' In this book you have done good service to the Church in her time of 
need, when so many good people are swept away from their moorings by the tidal 
wave of error now sweeping over Protestant Christianity. I am glad to see the 
clearness and cogency of your proof of the predestmarian basis of premillennialism. 
On page 45 I have penciled this sentence at the bottom : ' 'I his is sufficient proof 
that Wesley was not a premillennialist.' " — Rev. Daniel Steele, D. D. 

"Throughout the entire volume the author gives his strength to the Scripture 
argument. Especially pleasing is the beautiful spirit with which he closes the 
work, pleading as he does for 'boundless charity for the individual to prevail 
everywhere, while our light prevents bidding them Godspeed in their denial of the 
true Gospel of the Son of God.' It would be well for many of our people to read 
works of this character, and find their faith grow stronger in the grand means of 
salvation for all." — Christian Guardian. 

" George W. Wilson has written a trenchant and profitable book against pre- 
millennialism. To those who are interested in this subject this book can not be 
passed by without an examination. The writer has shown a fearless and honest 
spirit in his investigations and has not hesitated on an interesting point to join issue 
with Bishop Merrill. Mr. Wilson affirms that the premillennial view is not only 
unscriptural, but materialistic as well. Those who hold the view are Calvinistic. 
The world is growing worse and worse, and the premillenarians see no hope save 
in the speedy coming of our Lord. The book gives a history and statement of the 
doctrine, discusses the Antichrist, the two resurrections, the comings of the Lord, 
takes up the prophecies and the parables, and shows what fallacious interpreta- 
tions have been placed upon them by the premillenarians. The book will com- 
mand a hearing." — Western Christian Advocate. 



Cloth Binding. 366 pages. 



For sale by Author, 602 W. High Street, Urbana, Ills. 
Mailed to any address for $1.00. 
For sale by any Methodist Book Concern. 



JUN S3 1904 



